Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:57:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:53:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: Dutch wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote None are so blind as those who don't wish to see. Now that's ironic. Not in the slightest. You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out knee-jerk responding. angie girl really isn't a serious participant at all. To angie girl and other impotent and ineffectual "ara" types, merely blabbering the bullshit about "ar" is what counts for activism. This clearly applies to rupie as well. More a reflection Not a "reflection" of anything, angie girl. You demonstrate lack of substance and empty symbolism every time you blabber away about "ar". How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Parrot Lying do-nothing passivist. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:35:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl. I already have. You never even tried to defend your towering inconsistency, angie girl. See my other evasive, snarky bullshit. Angus Macmillan I already did, angie girl. It was a zero. I'm getting desperate now Angus Macmillan We could see that weeks ago, angie girl. No, you couldn't see anything. Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical, unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs. Parrot. non sequitur You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief about animals. Of course I do. Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already done so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those of us born since World War II. I have in this thread. Look back. I have, all I see are mostly meaningless comments and a few statements of your beliefs, no defenses of those beliefs. Give me a hint, or better, summarize your arguments now, for the record. See other post. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl. I already have. You never even tried to defend your towering inconsistency, angie girl. See my other evasive, snarky bullshit. Angus Macmillan I already did, angie girl. It was a zero. I'm getting desperate now Angus Macmillan We could see that weeks ago, angie girl. No, you couldn't see anything. Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical, unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs. Parrot. non sequitur You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief about animals. Of course I do. No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Parrot. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:13:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:49:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote None are so blind as those who don't wish to see. Now that's ironic. Not in the slightest. You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out knee-jerk responding. Not at all. Like that. If you can't understand the argument, I can't help you. And again. Tip: you might start by articulating an argument. I have already done so. No. Yes. No, you never even tried. You couldn't. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:55:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:57:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:53:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: Dutch wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote None are so blind as those who don't wish to see. Now that's ironic. Not in the slightest. You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out knee-jerk responding. angie girl really isn't a serious participant at all. To angie girl and other impotent and ineffectual "ara" types, merely blabbering the bullshit about "ar" is what counts for activism. This clearly applies to rupie as well. More a reflection Not a "reflection" of anything, angie girl. You demonstrate lack of substance and empty symbolism every time you blabber away about "ar". How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Parrot Lying do-nothing passivist. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl. I already have. You never even tried to defend your towering inconsistency, angie girl. See my other evasive, snarky bullshit. Angus Macmillan I already did, angie girl. It was a zero. I'm getting desperate now Angus Macmillan We could see that weeks ago, angie girl. No, you couldn't see anything. Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical, unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs. Parrot. non sequitur You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief about animals. Of course I do. Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already done so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those of us born since World War II. I have No. I can't help being a lying, fearful, do-nothing passivist. Angus Macmillan No, you probably can't. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:54:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:23:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:38:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote None are so blind as those who don't wish to see. Now that's ironic. Not in the slightest. Profoundly! Stunningly! Nothing profound or stunning about The irony of your plagiarized comment is, indeed, stunning and profound. You are blind, angie girl, mostly blind to your own lack of ability. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Parrot. Liar. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:37:47 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:13:57 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:13:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message news:r8pa83l8bln8t9spkove3be0n2pa4ff210@4ax. com... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:49:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:23:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote None are so blind as those who don't wish to see. Now that's ironic. Not in the slightest. You've taken irony to new heights, along with snippish, poorly thought-out knee-jerk responding. Not at all. Like that. If you can't understand the argument, I can't help you. And again. Tip: you might start by articulating an argument. I have already done so. Summarize it for me, you're articulate, right? I already have. Look back in the thread. I can't find anything remotely resembling an argument. If it's there please copy and paste it into a new reply. Look it up. I looked through your messages on this thread. The few comments you made that had any substance to them were refuted, like this one... You: We ALL kill wildlife in the course of our daily lives but the difference is that some people deliberately take the decision to kill them when there is no necessity to do so. That appears to be a pillar of your position, and it is utter nonsense, "necessity" in the statement is a deliberate misnomer. Most of the consumption-impacts you cause are not "necessity" based. If you didn't understand it before you're unlikely to understand it now. I understand perfectly, you enjoy posing as a great saviour of animals, it feeds your ego. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:49:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: No, you never even tried. You couldn't. Of course I did. You just didn't have the mental capacity to understand the argument. The following is not a coherent argument, that has been established. You: We ALL kill wildlife in the course of our daily lives but the difference is that some people deliberately take the decision to kill them when there is no necessity to do so. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:04 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:15:58 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl. I already have. You never even tried to defend your towering inconsistency, angie girl. See my other evasive, snarky bullshit. Angus Macmillan I already did, angie girl. It was a zero. I'm getting desperate now Angus Macmillan We could see that weeks ago, angie girl. No, you couldn't see anything. Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical, unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs. Parrot. non sequitur You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief about animals. Of course I do. Then do it instead of lamely and lazily claiming that you have already done so. Maybe you did, sometime, somewhere, but summarize it again for those of us born since World War II. I have No. I can't help being a lying, fearful, do-nothing passivist. Angus Macmillan No, you probably can't. You've altered my post again and answered it yourself. You won't answer a straight question, yet you hang around wasting time anyway. What do you expect? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote
On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:44:10 -0700, Rupert
wrote: On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. You wont get any sense out of Jonny Ball, he has short legs and is bald you know? ;-) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. What judgmental attitude? What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get specific. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. Fascinating. So what's your point? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. What judgmental attitude? The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else? What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get specific. See above. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. Fascinating. So what's your point? I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. What judgmental attitude? The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else? Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? You have lots of judgmental attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific. What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get specific. See above. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. Fascinating. So what's your point? I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time. Yawn. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. What judgmental attitude? The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else? Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? The attitude that using animals as products is immoral. You have lots of judgmental attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific. What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get specific. See above. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. Fascinating. So what's your point? I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time. Yawn. See above. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? It is intended to change a judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context. What judgmental attitude? The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else? Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? The attitude that using animals as products is immoral. Which counterexamples are you advocating? You have lots of judgmental attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific. What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get specific. See above. And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se. Fascinating. So what's your point? I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time. Yawn. See above.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world, and an irrational one at that. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods. To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree. [..] |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote: It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing. It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world, and an irrational one at that. You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality. I'm not even clear with which aspects of it you disagree. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods. To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree. I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that "their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does that rule out, exactly? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote
On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message [..] If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. That was just another one of your argumentative statements. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. Yes, I criticize Harrison for supporting cock-fighting, but I don't raise fighting animals or support any similar form of animal brutality for entertainment so it's not hypocritical for me to do that. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world, and an irrational one at that. You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality. It's been argued, you do not appear to be in a receptive frame of mind. I'm not even clear with which aspects of it you disagree. I realize that. It would help if you were more clear about your own beliefs, they seem to be a cauldron of confused ideas and ideals. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods. To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree. I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that "their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does that rule out, exactly? Fighting, but that's only partially because of the stress it places on the animals. Otherwise I am not saying that specific uses should be prohibited, I am saying the farming and husbandry practises ought to continue to be reformed to the stage where the animals live their entire lives in relative contentment. I think we owe it to them to reciprocate to that extent for any service they give to us. Currently I do not believe that most animal agriculture meets this challenge, but I also think there is a growing group of consumers demanding it, and a counter-trend in that direction. If vegetarians and pro-welfare advocates could get on the same page instead of pointing fingers it might be beneficial. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:50:14 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message [..] If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. That was just another one of your argumentative statements. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. You're constantly doing just that. You're an argumentative, natural bully and you don't even realise it. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Gloria" wrote in message
... On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:50:14 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message [..] If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. That was just another one of your argumentative statements. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. You're constantly doing just that. You're an argumentative, natural bully and you don't even realise it. That's completely incorrect, I do not criticize anyone's diet or lifestyle here. I criticize their statements or arguments when I find them to be flawed or poorly thought-out, which is the primary purpose of a newsgroup. You perceive me to be a bully because my criticisms are frequently spot-on. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 3, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message [..] If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. That was just another one of your argumentative statements. Just a statement of my opinion. If you want to try to give me some reason to change my opinion, go ahead. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. Neither do I. Yes, I criticize Harrison for supporting cock-fighting, but I don't raise fighting animals or support any similar form of animal brutality for entertainment so it's not hypocritical for me to do that. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world, and an irrational one at that. You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality. It's been argued, you do not appear to be in a receptive frame of mind. You do not appear to be very receptive to my attempts to explain what my position actually is. I'm not even clear with which aspects of it you disagree. I realize that. It would help if you were more clear about your own beliefs, they seem to be a cauldron of confused ideas and ideals. Well, I'm always happy to talk about my beliefs to people who are prepared to actually listen. I can't talk to you about any of these issues for five seconds without you crying "rubbish" in a way which indicates that you don't understand the idea being discussed. So I'm not particularly inclined to make the effort anymore. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods. To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree. I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that "their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does that rule out, exactly? Fighting, but that's only partially because of the stress it places on the animals. Otherwise I am not saying that specific uses should be prohibited, I am saying the farming and husbandry practises ought to continue to be reformed to the stage where the animals live their entire lives in relative contentment. I think we owe it to them to reciprocate to that extent for any service they give to us. Currently I do not believe that most animal agriculture meets this challenge, but I also think there is a growing group of consumers demanding it, and a counter-trend in that direction. If vegetarians and pro-welfare advocates could get on the same page instead of pointing fingers it might be beneficial. If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com... On Jul 3, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message [..] If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. That was just another one of your argumentative statements. Just a statement of my opinion. If you want to try to give me some reason to change my opinion, go ahead. That's what I have been trying to do all along. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. Neither do I. Sure you do, you do it directly below. Yes, I criticize Harrison for supporting cock-fighting, but I don't raise fighting animals or support any similar form of animal brutality for entertainment so it's not hypocritical for me to do that. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? Because you're not in any position to do so. People make choices based on their financial situation, as you do. Obtaining food is not comparable to raising fighting animals. You should be directly criticizing the forms of animal husbandry which you find abusive, not other people. That's what I do. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world, and an irrational one at that. You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality. It's been argued, you do not appear to be in a receptive frame of mind. You do not appear to be very receptive to my attempts to explain what my position actually is. That's because you're not very articulate. Most of the time you simply assert that you disagree, and when you do attempt to clarify your position you end up just talking in circles, referring to "the literature", or criticizing us for not being educated enough to understand you. I'm not even clear with which aspects of it you disagree. I realize that. It would help if you were more clear about your own beliefs, they seem to be a cauldron of confused ideas and ideals. Well, I'm always happy to talk about my beliefs to people who are prepared to actually listen. I can't talk to you about any of these issues for five seconds without you crying "rubbish" in a way which indicates that you don't understand the idea being discussed. So I'm not particularly inclined to make the effort anymore. Too bad, but it doesn't really bother me because I have already concluded that you don't have anything earth-shattering to contribute anyway, despite your belief to the contrary. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods. To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree. I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that "their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does that rule out, exactly? Fighting, but that's only partially because of the stress it places on the animals. Otherwise I am not saying that specific uses should be prohibited, I am saying the farming and husbandry practises ought to continue to be reformed to the stage where the animals live their entire lives in relative contentment. I think we owe it to them to reciprocate to that extent for any service they give to us. Currently I do not believe that most animal agriculture meets this challenge, but I also think there is a growing group of consumers demanding it, and a counter-trend in that direction. If vegetarians and pro-welfare advocates could get on the same page instead of pointing fingers it might be beneficial. If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? You just summarized the whole problem with your position in one sentence. You must define and quantify "significantly", "harm", "necessary", "compelling", "need" and "justified" before that question has any meaning. Growing rice causes more harm than growing potatoes, why is it justified to grow rice? bananas? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 4:15 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 3, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message [..] If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently acknowledge this below. The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Get more specific. Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others. Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at all. Is that the story? No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite. I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not. That was just another one of your argumentative statements. Just a statement of my opinion. If you want to try to give me some reason to change my opinion, go ahead. That's what I have been trying to do all along. In my view, you have done a very poor job of it, and the reason is that there actually are no good reasons why I am hypocritical which don't apply equally well to you. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. Neither do I. Sure you do, you do it directly below. The horror, the horror. Like all the antis here, you make unprovoked and unfounded personal attacks on people, and you usually regard the simple fact that they've gone vegan as sufficient justification for it. I don't make unprovoked personal attacks on people, and I don't comment on specific people's lifestyle choices. Yes, I criticize Harrison for supporting cock-fighting, but I don't raise fighting animals or support any similar form of animal brutality for entertainment so it's not hypocritical for me to do that. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? Because you're not in any position to do so. There's no justification for saying that. If you're in a position to criticize other people, then there's no reason why I'm not. People make choices based on their financial situation, as you do. Obtaining food is not comparable to raising fighting animals. You should be directly criticizing the forms of animal husbandry which you find abusive, not other people. That's what I do. That's also what I do. I don't spend my time criticizing other people's consumption choices. It's true that I do think the best way forward is for large numbers of people to modify their consumption choices, and I do think there is a moral obligation for most people to do so and I occasionally express that view. I really don't see what you find so objectionable about that. You're talking as though I spend all my time criticizing other people, it's actually the antis, including yourself, who constantly do that. It really is incredible effrontery for you to take me to task for criticizing other people. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is? See above. Status quo is a strawman. That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status quo? I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple attack on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the world, and an irrational one at that. You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality. It's been argued, you do not appear to be in a receptive frame of mind. You do not appear to be very receptive to my attempts to explain what my position actually is. That's because you're not very articulate. Well, that's your view of the matter. A lot of people find me an extremely articulate presenter of many ideas I have studied in many different fields. Most of the time you simply assert that you disagree, and when you do attempt to clarify your position you end up just talking in circles, referring to "the literature", or criticizing us for not being educated enough to understand you. Well, that's the view of the matter that you've formed. I'm not even clear with which aspects of it you disagree. I realize that. It would help if you were more clear about your own beliefs, they seem to be a cauldron of confused ideas and ideals. Well, I'm always happy to talk about my beliefs to people who are prepared to actually listen. I can't talk to you about any of these issues for five seconds without you crying "rubbish" in a way which indicates that you don't understand the idea being discussed. So I'm not particularly inclined to make the effort anymore. Too bad, but it doesn't really bother me because I have already concluded that you don't have anything earth-shattering to contribute anyway, despite your belief to the contrary. We may very well agree that the status quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans. In what respects do we disagree? I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure their lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we could not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods. To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree. I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that "their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does that rule out, exactly? Fighting, but that's only partially because of the stress it places on the animals. Otherwise I am not saying that specific uses should be prohibited, I am saying the farming and husbandry practises ought to continue to be reformed to the stage where the animals live their entire lives in relative contentment. I think we owe it to them to reciprocate to that extent for any service they give to us. Currently I do not believe that most animal agriculture meets this challenge, but I also think there is a growing group of consumers demanding it, and a counter-trend in that direction. If vegetarians and pro-welfare advocates could get on the same page instead of pointing fingers it might be beneficial. If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? You just summarized the whole problem with your position in one sentence. You must define and quantify "significantly", "harm", "necessary", "compelling", "need" and "justified" before that question has any meaning. Growing rice causes more harm than growing potatoes, why is it justified to grow rice? bananas? Well, these are good questions that are worth exploring. The point is that we all draw the line somewhere. You draw the line somewhere, with regard to the products you buy yourself and also with regard to the products you regard it as acceptable for others to buy. We can argue about where to draw the line, but you're saying that the place where I choose to draw the line is somehow more problematic or somehow makes me more hypocritical than you. Neither you nor any other antis here has ever given any good reason to think that. That's the point. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. You've shown no evidence of either. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. You're a joke. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. =============== Yet another claim you ahve yet to prove. You cannot assume that being vegan or AR automatically means fewer animals die for your lifestyle. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. ================== Yes fool, you are. I recognize and understand that every aspect of my life kills animals. I don't pretend, like you do, that by avoiding one particular product that I am doing anything to kill fewer. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. ========================== There's all the dead animals you kill to prove otherwise, hypocrite. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. ===================== Yes, I do. You're own actions prove your hypocrisy, killer. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. ===================== No, you don't care about animals killer. that's the whole point. You only pay lip service to some religion, but do nothing in reality to live up to your claims. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. =================== No fool, anyone that claims to save animals by not eating them and then uses usenet to proclaim their hypocrisy is what I am saying, killer. thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. =========================== No fool, those are your strawmen, killer. I'm giving you information about how you COULD make a difference, but like all hypocritical wannbe vegans here on usenet, you are more concerned about YOUR selfishness and entertainment. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. ======================= You keep proving otherwise, killer. Thanks for a great display of hypocrisy. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. ================ It's your claims that are absurd, killer. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. ========================= LOL I call you that from your actions, killer. Despite your claims, you needlessly, unnecessarily, and brutally kill far more animals than necessary for your life. Why? because you value YOUR entertainment and convenience far more than any concern for animals. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. =[================= Yes, your claims are a joke. Thanks for agreeing, and proving your hypocrisy, killer... You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? ================== And nothing hypocrite. that was a complete and factual statement. Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. ========================= yet you continue to prove otherwise, killer. There is no survival or health need for you to be on usenet, nor to eat your varity of imported foods and spices. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. ==================== Which you prove otherwise with every inane post you make fool. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. ========================= One based solely on your convenience and entertainment witrhout regard to the number of animals that die. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. ======================= I suggest you look up the term, killer. the claims you make, and the actions you take are hypocrisy in spades, killer. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. You've shown no evidence of either. ===================== ROTFLMAO You've done that for me with every post fool. Mores the pity that you still fail understand that, hypocrite. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. You're a joke. =============== No, i've proven how big the joke is on you, killer. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 12:25 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. =============== Yet another claim you ahve yet to prove. You cannot assume that being vegan or AR automatically means fewer animals die for your lifestyle. We've been over this quite a few times. I think I've provided enough evidence for my claim that a vegan lifestyle has less impact on animals than a typical Western lifestyle that it's reasonable to ask you to provide some evidence to the contrary. (There may be *some* non- vegan lifestyles that are just as good, I don't deny this. You seem to be having trouble keeping track of the distinction between the two issues). It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. ================== Yes fool, you are. I recognize and understand that every aspect of my life kills animals. So do I. I don't pretend, like you do, that by avoiding one particular product that I am doing anything to kill fewer. What are the reasons for doubting that? It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. ========================== There's all the dead animals you kill to prove otherwise, hypocrite. Elaborate. How many animals did I kill in the last year? Bearing in mind that the electricity I use is produced by solar panels. And how about the facts on the other side of the balance, that I've made many significant changes to my lifestyle to reduce my impact on animals, much more than most people, and that I volunteer a lot of my time to an organization which aims to improve the situation of animals. What rational grounds do you have for saying that these facts mean nothing? If they do, then no-one cares about animals. Do you really find that a plausible contention? You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. ===================== Yes, I do. You're own actions prove your hypocrisy, killer. Rubbish, as explained many times. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. ===================== No, you don't care about animals killer. that's the whole point. You only pay lip service to some religion, but do nothing in reality to live up to your claims. That's palpable, laughable rubbish. No rational person would take it seriously for a moment. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. =================== No fool, anyone that claims to save animals by not eating them and then uses usenet to proclaim their hypocrisy is what I am saying, killer. Which is stupid. I believe that the changes I have made to my diet have reduced my expected contribution to animal suffering and death, and I think I have provided some good, solid evidence for this. I also acknowledge that when I use electricity over and above what is produced by our house's solar panels, that increases my expected contribution to animal suffering and death by an amount greater than zero. So what's the problem? Where's the evidence of hypocrisy? thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. Yawn. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. =========================== No fool, those are your strawmen, killer. No. It's clearly what you're saying. You said I don't care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for saying that unless you believe some farcical statement like the one above. I'm giving you information about how you COULD make a difference, but like all hypocritical wannbe vegans here on usenet, you are more concerned about YOUR selfishness and entertainment. There are lots of ways I could make a difference, and I do a lot to make a difference, a lot more than most people. In particular, my parents have bought solar panels which reduce the impact of my electricity consumption, and I will buy solar panels myself when I am living by myself and can afford them. As with everyone else, there are some limits to what I am prepared to do. You don't do any more than me, so what grounds have you got for criticizing me? Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. ======================= You keep proving otherwise, killer. That's utterly absurd. How? Argue the point. Thanks for a great display of hypocrisy. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. ================ It's your claims that are absurd, killer. 'Fraid not. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. ========================= LOL I call you that from your actions, killer. Despite your claims, you needlessly, unnecessarily, and brutally kill far more animals than necessary for your life. Why? because you value YOUR entertainment and convenience far more than any concern for animals. I do not "brutally kill" anything. I consume some products whose production caused some animal deaths. A lot less than most people, in particular most of my electricity consumption is cruelty-free. You consume products whose production caused animal deaths at least as much as me, of course. So why is it that I am hypocritical and you are not? Because you don't claim to care about animals, you say. So anyone who claims to care about animals and uses usenet is a hypocrite? Well, that's a joke. We go over this over and over again. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. =[================= Yes, your claims are a joke. Thanks for agreeing, and proving your hypocrisy, killer... Imbecile. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? ================== And nothing hypocrite. that was a complete and factual statement. Yes, I agree. The same is true of everyone else, of course, in most cases to a much greater extent. So what? Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. ========================= yet you continue to prove otherwise, killer. There is no survival or health need for you to be on usenet, nor to eat your varity of imported foods and spices. I use solar panels. You haven't established that my usenet usage causes any deaths whatsoever. You've been lamely arguing that Google might get more advertising revenue from my actions, I don't think that's very plausible unless I click on the ads. You don't know anything about how much imported food and spices I eat, and while I can see that this is a concern from the point of view of global warming, you haven't elaborated on how it bears on animals specifically. I do not believe that I cause significantly more animal suffering and death than is necessary to keep me healthy. To argue otherwise you would have to come up with a reasonable estimate for how much suffering and death I actually cause. You've never attempted this task. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. ==================== Which you prove otherwise with every inane post you make fool. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. Nonsense. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. ========================= One based solely on your convenience and entertainment witrhout regard to the number of animals that die. No, not at all. That's obvious nonsense. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. ======================= I suggest you look up the term, killer. the claims you make, and the actions you take are hypocrisy in spades, killer. Hypocrisy means failing to act in accordance with your stated moral beliefs. You usually get my moral beliefs wrong. You've yet to demonstrate that my actions are inconsistent with my actual moral beliefs. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. You've shown no evidence of either. ===================== ROTFLMAO You've done that for me with every post fool. Mores the pity that you still fail understand that, hypocrite. As explained several times, this is a joke. More's the pity that you still fail to understand *that*. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. You're a joke. =============== No, i've proven how big the joke is on you, killer. 'Fraid not. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message ps.com... On Jul 5, 12:25 pm, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. =============== Yet another claim you ahve yet to prove. You cannot assume that being vegan or AR automatically means fewer animals die for your lifestyle. We've been over this quite a few times. I think I've provided enough evidence for my claim that a vegan lifestyle has less impact on animals than a typical Western lifestyle that it's reasonable to ask you to provide some evidence to the contrary. (There may be *some* non- vegan lifestyles that are just as good, I don't deny this. You seem to be having trouble keeping track of the distinction between the two issues). ========================== Nice strawman, killer. the problem is that vegans claim that just being vegan automatically means you're doing better. As to your admission that being vegan doesn't automatically mean what they claim is noted. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. ================== Yes fool, you are. I recognize and understand that every aspect of my life kills animals. So do I. ==================== Nope. You try to claim otherwise, yet fail miserably at living up to that claim. I don't pretend, like you do, that by avoiding one particular product that I am doing anything to kill fewer. What are the reasons for doubting that? ==================== You're here, that proves it, killer... It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. ========================== There's all the dead animals you kill to prove otherwise, hypocrite. Elaborate. How many animals did I kill in the last year? ==================== How many did you save? Remember, the first claim was yours, that being vegan saved animals. Bearing in mind that the electricity I use is produced by solar panels. ======================= We've been through this bs before, killer. Skipping the fact that I don't believe you, since you're already a proven liar, your use of the internet, and the demands you are part of go far beyond the electric your computer uses. That you continue to ignore your entertainment impacts on animals is quite amusing to watch, killer. And how about the facts on the other side of the balance, that I've made many significant changes to my lifestyle to reduce my impact on animals, much more than most people, and that I volunteer a lot of my time to an organization which aims to improve the situation of animals. What rational grounds do you have for saying that these facts mean nothing? If they do, then no-one cares about animals. Do you really find that a plausible contention? ======================= yet here you are, continuing to unnecessarily kill animals for nothing more than your entertainment. Yes, i say that your claims are quite implausible. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. ===================== Yes, I do. You're own actions prove your hypocrisy, killer. Rubbish, as explained many times. ============= Truth, as has been proven many times, killer. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. ===================== No, you don't care about animals killer. that's the whole point. You only pay lip service to some religion, but do nothing in reality to live up to your claims. That's palpable, laughable rubbish. No rational person would take it seriously for a moment. ============================= Yet here you are, time after time proving your hypocrisy. Must be some reason you keep coming back \to look so foolish and display your ignorance, hypocrite. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. =================== No fool, anyone that claims to save animals by not eating them and then uses usenet to proclaim their hypocrisy is what I am saying, killer. Which is stupid. I believe that the changes I have made to my diet have reduced my expected contribution to animal suffering and death, and I think I have provided some good, solid evidence for this. ====================== You've provided no such evidence, killer. I also acknowledge that when I use electricity over and above what is produced by our house's solar panels, that increases my expected contribution to animal suffering and death by an amount greater than zero. So what's the problem? Where's the evidence of hypocrisy? =================== It proves your claims to be lies, killer. thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. Yawn. ============== Run away now little boy.... snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. =========================== No fool, those are your strawmen, killer. No. It's clearly what you're saying. You said I don't care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for saying that unless you believe some farcical statement like the one above. ============================= No, you proved it, fool. I merely pointed it out to you and the world to see, hypocrite... I'm giving you information about how you COULD make a difference, but like all hypocritical wannbe vegans here on usenet, you are more concerned about YOUR selfishness and entertainment. There are lots of ways I could make a difference, and I do a lot to make a difference, a lot more than most people. In particular, my parents have bought solar panels which reduce the impact of my electricity consumption, and I will buy solar panels myself when I am living by myself and can afford them. As with everyone else, there are some limits to what I am prepared to do. You don't do any more than me, so what grounds have you got for criticizing me? ======================= You actions, killer... Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. ======================= You keep proving otherwise, killer. That's utterly absurd. How? Argue the point. =================== here you are, hypocrite... Thanks for a great display of hypocrisy. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. ================ It's your claims that are absurd, killer. 'Fraid not. ================== 'fraid so, killer... However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. ========================= LOL I call you that from your actions, killer. Despite your claims, you needlessly, unnecessarily, and brutally kill far more animals than necessary for your life. Why? because you value YOUR entertainment and convenience far more than any concern for animals. I do not "brutally kill" anything. I consume some products whose production caused some animal deaths. A lot less than most people, in particular most of my electricity consumption is cruelty-free. ================================== Another of your claims you fail to prove. You consume products whose production caused animal deaths at least as much as me, of course. So why is it that I am hypocritical and you are not? Because you don't claim to care about animals, you say. So anyone who claims to care about animals and uses usenet is a hypocrite? Well, that's a joke. We go over this over and over again. ==================== Nope, not a joke fool, the truth. You can deny all you want, but it won't change the facts, killer... You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. =[================= Yes, your claims are a joke. Thanks for agreeing, and proving your hypocrisy, killer... Imbecile. ================== Ah yes, great proof, hypocrite. How many animals did that kill? What, no, how many animals did that save? You really are just too stupid, killer... thanks for the laughs, I'll live forever if laughter is the best medicine... You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? ================== And nothing hypocrite. that was a complete and factual statement. Yes, I agree. The same is true of everyone else, of course, in most cases to a much greater extent. So what? ==================== No, it does not apply to everyone in the context you place it. Sane people realize that animals are going to die for the productions of any of their crops. You try to pretend that somehow they are reduced just because you say you care. Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. ========================= yet you continue to prove otherwise, killer. There is no survival or health need for you to be on usenet, nor to eat your varity of imported foods and spices. I use solar panels. You haven't established that my usenet usage causes any deaths whatsoever. =========================== Bullshit. You're a proven liar, and as I've told you before, you contributions go far beyond your own computer, killer. that you are too stupid and willfully ignorant to understand reality is part and parcel of vegan ignorance. You've been lamely arguing that Google might get more advertising revenue from my actions, I don't think that's very plausible unless I click on the ads. ==================== Bullshit, fool. I never said that, you have tried to imply it because of your ignorance amd need to not understand how you impact animals. Staying ignorant is want you have to do to remain a wannbe vegan... You don't know anything about how much imported food and spices I eat, ======================= LOL You're too engrossed in your own convenience and entertainment. It's easy toi see through you, hypocrite. and while I can see that this is a concern from the point of view of global warming, you haven't elaborated on how it bears on animals specifically. I do not believe that I cause significantly more animal suffering and death than is necessary to keep me healthy. To argue otherwise you would have to come up with a reasonable estimate for how much suffering and death I actually cause. You've never attempted this task. ============================ LOL You make the original claims fool. try showing how many you have saved. I have shown how you kill animals, and nhow many are involved. Too bad you've never been ablr to back up anything you've said, killer. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. ==================== Which you prove otherwise with every inane post you make fool. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. Nonsense. ================== Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. ========================= One based solely on your convenience and entertainment witrhout regard to the number of animals that die. No, not at all. That's obvious nonsense. ================== No, an obvious observation, killer. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. ======================= I suggest you look up the term, killer. the claims you make, and the actions you take are hypocrisy in spades, killer. Hypocrisy means failing to act in accordance with your stated moral beliefs. You usually get my moral beliefs wrong. You've yet to demonstrate that my actions are inconsistent with my actual moral beliefs. =================== You backing off your claims to care/save animals? thanks for the admission of your previous hypocrisy, killer.... Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. You've shown no evidence of either. ===================== ROTFLMAO You've done that for me with every post fool. Mores the pity that you still fail understand that, hypocrite. As explained several times, this is a joke. More's the pity that you still fail to understand *that*. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. You're a joke. =============== No, i've proven how big the joke is on you, killer. 'Fraid not. ==================== Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Vague and open to interpertation. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 1:40 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ps.com... On Jul 5, 12:25 pm, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. =============== Yet another claim you ahve yet to prove. You cannot assume that being vegan or AR automatically means fewer animals die for your lifestyle. We've been over this quite a few times. I think I've provided enough evidence for my claim that a vegan lifestyle has less impact on animals than a typical Western lifestyle that it's reasonable to ask you to provide some evidence to the contrary. (There may be *some* non- vegan lifestyles that are just as good, I don't deny this. You seem to be having trouble keeping track of the distinction between the two issues). ========================== Nice strawman, killer. the problem is that vegans claim that just being vegan automatically means you're doing better. As to your admission that being vegan doesn't automatically mean what they claim is noted. If you're claiming to criticize my stance then you've got to address yourself to opinions that I actually hold, otherwise you're the one who's guilty of the straw man. I do not care what other vegans think, you take that up with them. It looks like you agree with the opinions that I actually hold, so perhaps an appropriate thing to say would be "It looks like we are in agreement, I retract my claim that you were in error". It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. ================== Yes fool, you are. I recognize and understand that every aspect of my life kills animals. So do I. ==================== Nope. You try to claim otherwise, yet fail miserably at living up to that claim. Stop talking silly nonsense and making things up. I've never denied that many aspects of my lifestyle cause animal deaths. I don't pretend, like you do, that by avoiding one particular product that I am doing anything to kill fewer. What are the reasons for doubting that? ==================== You're here, that proves it, killer... Ridiculous nonsense. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. ========================== There's all the dead animals you kill to prove otherwise, hypocrite. Elaborate. How many animals did I kill in the last year? ==================== How many did you save? Remember, the first claim was yours, that being vegan saved animals. Well, that's a good question. I don't know exactly. Probably about 20 per year if you count chickens. I haven't got any particular interest in proving to you that I'm doing a good job of saving animals. I'm more interested in just getting on with the job. If you're going to try and argue that I'm not doing that good a job, it's your job to make your case. Bearing in mind that the electricity I use is produced by solar panels. ======================= We've been through this bs before, killer. Skipping the fact that I don't believe you, Well, that's pitiful desperation. If you're going to criticize someone's lifestyle when you don't know the facts, you can't just say "I don't believe you" when they tell you the facts. If you're going to contest what I say you've got to give some reason for thinking that you've got access to a more reliable source than me. since you're already a proven liar, Absolute nonsense. I've never told a single lie here and you know it. your use of the internet, and the demands you are part of go far beyond the electric your computer uses. Yes, I discussed this argument of yours. I don't buy it. No advertiser is going to give Google more money unless I actually click on one of their advertisements. That you continue to ignore your entertainment impacts on animals is quite amusing to watch, killer. It's quite amusing to watch your pitiful efforts to find any impact at all coming from my usenet use. And how about the facts on the other side of the balance, that I've made many significant changes to my lifestyle to reduce my impact on animals, much more than most people, and that I volunteer a lot of my time to an organization which aims to improve the situation of animals. What rational grounds do you have for saying that these facts mean nothing? If they do, then no-one cares about animals. Do you really find that a plausible contention? ======================= yet here you are, continuing to unnecessarily kill animals for nothing more than your entertainment. You've yet to establish that, and anyway this really doesn't answer my question. Everyone's lifestyle causes some animal deaths. Do you really think it's plausible to say that therefore *no-one* cares about animals in the least? Yes, i say that your claims are quite implausible. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. ===================== Yes, I do. You're own actions prove your hypocrisy, killer. Rubbish, as explained many times. ============= Truth, as has been proven many times, killer. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. ===================== No, you don't care about animals killer. that's the whole point. You only pay lip service to some religion, but do nothing in reality to live up to your claims. That's palpable, laughable rubbish. No rational person would take it seriously for a moment. ============================= Yet here you are, time after time proving your hypocrisy. Must be some reason you keep coming back \to look so foolish and display your ignorance, hypocrite. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. =================== No fool, anyone that claims to save animals by not eating them and then uses usenet to proclaim their hypocrisy is what I am saying, killer. Which is stupid. I believe that the changes I have made to my diet have reduced my expected contribution to animal suffering and death, and I think I have provided some good, solid evidence for this. ====================== You've provided no such evidence, killer. I've provided plenty of evidence and you've never addressed it. I also acknowledge that when I use electricity over and above what is produced by our house's solar panels, that increases my expected contribution to animal suffering and death by an amount greater than zero. So what's the problem? Where's the evidence of hypocrisy? =================== It proves your claims to be lies, killer. Which ones? thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. Yawn. ============== Run away now little boy.... snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. =========================== No fool, those are your strawmen, killer. No. It's clearly what you're saying. You said I don't care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for saying that unless you believe some farcical statement like the one above. ============================= No, you proved it, fool. As I say, any rational person will see this for the joke that it is. I really marvel that you can spout such nonsense with a straight face. I merely pointed it out to you and the world to see, hypocrite... I'm giving you information about how you COULD make a difference, but like all hypocritical wannbe vegans here on usenet, you are more concerned about YOUR selfishness and entertainment. There are lots of ways I could make a difference, and I do a lot to make a difference, a lot more than most people. In particular, my parents have bought solar panels which reduce the impact of my electricity consumption, and I will buy solar panels myself when I am living by myself and can afford them. As with everyone else, there are some limits to what I am prepared to do. You don't do any more than me, so what grounds have you got for criticizing me? ======================= You actions, killer... How are my actions any worse than yours? Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. ======================= You keep proving otherwise, killer. That's utterly absurd. How? Argue the point. =================== here you are, hypocrite... That's an absolutely pitiful effort. It does absolutely nothing to support the statement you made. Especially in light of the fact that you've yet to demonstrate that my usenet activity harms animals at all. Thanks for a great display of hypocrisy. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. ================ It's your claims that are absurd, killer. 'Fraid not. ================== 'fraid so, killer... However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. ========================= LOL I call you that from your actions, killer. Despite your claims, you needlessly, unnecessarily, and brutally kill far more animals than necessary for your life. Why? because you value YOUR entertainment and convenience far more than any concern for animals. I do not "brutally kill" anything. I consume some products whose production caused some animal deaths. A lot less than most people, in particular most of my electricity consumption is cruelty-free. ================================== Another of your claims you fail to prove. I've provided adequate evidence for it. It's your job to address that evidence. You consume products whose production caused animal deaths at least as much as me, of course. So why is it that I am hypocritical and you are not? Because you don't claim to care about animals, you say. So anyone who claims to care about animals and uses usenet is a hypocrite? Well, that's a joke. We go over this over and over again. ==================== Nope, not a joke fool, the truth. You can deny all you want, but it won't change the facts, killer... Well, you can spout this nonsense for all eternity, but you're still not going to convince any rational person. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. =[================= Yes, your claims are a joke. Thanks for agreeing, and proving your hypocrisy, killer... Imbecile. ================== Ah yes, great proof, hypocrite. Proof of what? There was nothing in your ludicrous nonsense worth engaging with seriously. How many animals did that kill? None. What, no, how many animals did that save? You really are just too stupid, killer... thanks for the laughs, I'll live forever if laughter is the best medicine... The feeling is mutual. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? ================== And nothing hypocrite. that was a complete and factual statement. Yes, I agree. The same is true of everyone else, of course, in most cases to a much greater extent. So what? ==================== No, it does not apply to everyone in the context you place it. Sane people realize that animals are going to die for the productions of any of their crops. As do I... You try to pretend that somehow they are reduced just because you say you care. My contribution to animal suffering is reduced because the crop inputs required for my diet are much less, and the extreme animal cruelty involved in producing most animal products is completely avoided, as discussed countless times. Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. ========================= yet you continue to prove otherwise, killer. There is no survival or health need for you to be on usenet, nor to eat your varity of imported foods and spices. I use solar panels. You haven't established that my usenet usage causes any deaths whatsoever. =========================== Bullshit. You're a proven liar, Then it should be possible for you to identify a single lie I've told, liar. and as I've told you before, you contributions go far beyond your own computer, killer. You've yet to adequately argue this point. that you are too stupid and willfully ignorant to understand reality is part and parcel of vegan ignorance. Unfortunately for you, you are unable to argue your claims, you just mindlessly hurl insults. You've been lamely arguing that Google might get more advertising revenue from my actions, I don't think that's very plausible unless I click on the ads. ==================== Bullshit, fool. I never said that, you have tried to imply it because of your ignorance amd need to not understand how you impact animals. Staying ignorant is want you have to do to remain a wannbe vegan... What's your argument, then? How are my actions going to have any impact on animals? Just provide a decent argument for once. You don't know anything about how much imported food and spices I eat, ======================= LOL You're too engrossed in your own convenience and entertainment. It's easy toi see through you, hypocrite. Translation: I'll make up fantasies about you and denigrate you on the basis of them instead of acknowledgeing that I don't know the facts. and while I can see that this is a concern from the point of view of global warming, you haven't elaborated on how it bears on animals specifically. I do not believe that I cause significantly more animal suffering and death than is necessary to keep me healthy. To argue otherwise you would have to come up with a reasonable estimate for how much suffering and death I actually cause. You've never attempted this task. ============================ LOL You make the original claims fool. try showing how many you have saved. I have shown how you kill animals, and nhow many are involved. Too bad you've never been ablr to back up anything you've said, killer. But I have no interest in proving myself to you. I just have in interest in helping animals, not in proving to you that I help animals. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. You took it upon yourself to insult me, either back up your claims or acknowledge that your insults lacked foundation. Or continue to prove yourself to be a moronic ignorant bigot, which seems much more likely. I'm not too fussed either way. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. ==================== Which you prove otherwise with every inane post you make fool. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. Nonsense. ================== Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. ========================= One based solely on your convenience and entertainment witrhout regard to the number of animals that die. No, not at all. That's obvious nonsense. ================== No, an obvious observation, killer. No, a silly fantasy you made up which is contradicted by obvious facts. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. ======================= I suggest you look up the term, killer. the claims you make, and the actions you take are hypocrisy in spades, killer. Hypocrisy means failing to act in accordance with your stated moral beliefs. You usually get my moral beliefs wrong. You've yet to demonstrate that my actions are inconsistent with my actual moral beliefs. =================== You backing off your claims to care/save animals? I'm not retracting any claim I've actually made. I do reduce my impact on animals, and it is motivated by genuine concern. Any idiot would be able to see that. thanks for the admission of your previous hypocrisy, killer.... I've admitted no such thing. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. You've shown no evidence of either. ===================== ROTFLMAO You've done that for me with every post fool. Mores the pity that you still fail understand that, hypocrite. As explained several times, this is a joke. More's the pity that you still fail to understand *that*. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. You're a joke. =============== No, i've proven how big the joke is on you, killer. 'Fraid not. ==================== Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining, I'm just pointing out his extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense. You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse. Absolutely pathetic. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Vague and open to interpertation. Yes. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no way vague and open to interpretation? Like your notion of what makes us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to interpretation? I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote
On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote: ][..] I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining, LOL, just a wheezy windbag then. I'm just pointing out his extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense. You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse. Absolutely pathetic. Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, and as with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are. [..] ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Vague and open to interpertation. Yes. Thereby meaningless. that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no way vague and open to interpretation? It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is vague and open to interpretation. Like your notion of what makes us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to interpretation? Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone. It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line he is comfortable with. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote: ][..] I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining, LOL, just a wheezy windbag then. I'm just pointing out his extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense. You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse. Absolutely pathetic. Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest? If not, then what's your objection to what I said? Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational arguments you've raised against it. and as with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are. Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't see the least rational ground for that. You maintain that some patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the magic untouchability of animal products? [..] ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Vague and open to interpertation. Yes. Thereby meaningless. No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to interpretation. that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no way vague and open to interpretation? It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is vague and open to interpretation. Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me? Like your notion of what makes us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to interpretation? Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human. If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone. It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line he is comfortable with. What about the man who buys child pornography, then? Is the place where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote: "Rupert" wrote On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote: ][..] I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining, LOL, just a wheezy windbag then. I'm just pointing out his extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense. You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse. Absolutely pathetic. Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, Not that I recall. That's because you don't listen, you think you're so smart that you don't need to. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest? If not, then what's your objection to what I said? I've told you what I think of you. Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational arguments you've raised against it. Already done. and as with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are. Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't see the least rational ground for that. Stop beating around the bush liar. You believe that ALL consumption of animal products is morally wrong, how could you not, you think there exists a presumption of "equal consideration". You maintain that some patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the magic untouchability of animal products? **** off, sophist. Typical ARA. [..] ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. Vague and open to interpertation. Yes. Thereby meaningless. No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to interpretation. False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already. that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no way vague and open to interpretation? It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is vague and open to interpretation. Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me? I don't treat anything with kid gloves you sophist prick. I'm saying that being against "animal products" is a bogus issue born out of some fuzzy-headed AR college lounge. The reality of collateral deaths reveals it. Like your notion of what makes us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to interpretation? Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human. If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much vague and open to interpretation. No it's not. It means "member of the species Homo sapiens", AND everything that that implies. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone. It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line he is comfortable with. What about the man who buys child pornography, then? We're talking about harming animals in food production, not pornography, not rape, not murder, sophist. Is the place where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy. Touchy aren't you? Sophist. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote [..] Like me, you think that some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to interpretation. False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already. That's correct, you have, so let's have a look at those clear statements you've made regarding animals over the years you've spent here to save Rupert some time extracting them from you. "I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in commercial meat production that I refuse to eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this and health reasons I eat no meat at all." Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa and "Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate the treatment of animals in the mass meat industry I choose not not eat it." Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 and "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh and "I recently signed a petition online supporting an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament." Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn and "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for animals would not exist." Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz and "If they are inherent in humans then why are they not in some way inherent in all animals? I think rights are a human invention which we apply widely to humans and in specific ways in certain situations to other animals." ... "There is no coherent reason why humans ought to be prohibited from extending some form of rights towards animals in their care." ... "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply versions of them to certain animals in limited ways within our sphere of influence." Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude that they hold rights against humans who would abuse them." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp and "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar way as minor children or people in comas. They can hold rights against us, but we can't hold rights against them." Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx Hope that helps. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter