On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

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


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

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



Of course they are. It involves "rights".

What does? What the hell are you talking about?

I've already covered that. Look back.



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


All part of human behaviour.

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


It's all human behaviour.

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



I have already defended it.

Defended what?



The logic of my position.




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

Lets have some specifics in detail.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


I'm not. I'm against war but not against farming.




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

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

Who said I was a vegan?

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


Same thing .

So what's the problem?



I don't have a problem.


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


Just like war in and around the world.

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


It's still human behaviour.

So what?



It's human behaviour.





You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

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


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

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

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


It doesn't prevent killing.

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


That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for
indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake.





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

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

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

Which is part of human behaviour.

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


No it's not both are morally wrong.



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



I haven't.

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



Not at all.


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

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

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

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

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

It's you who has everything upside down.

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


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

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


In what way?





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

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


Ditto.

Who are you and what are doing here?

Very easily sorting out trolls :-))

Are you playing with daddy's computer?


Are you playing with mummy's


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

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

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

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


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

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



Of course they are. It involves "rights".

What does? What the hell are you talking about?

I've already covered that. Look back.

I've been following along, you haven't covered anything.




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


All part of human behaviour.

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


It's all human behaviour.

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



I have already defended it.

Defended what?



The logic of my position.

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted it.






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

Lets have some specifics in detail.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


I'm not.

Yes you did. When I noted that you subsidize the systematic destruction of
animals in farming you replied that humans are systematically killed in war,
as if that were a valid analogy.

I'm against war but not against farming.

Yet you call war "normal" and used war as a vehicle to deflect criticism of
the way you sponsor the killing of animals in farming. You are not making
sense.

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

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

Who said I was a vegan?

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


Same thing .

So what's the problem?



I don't have a problem.

You're just hanging by a thread aren't you?

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


Just like war in and around the world.

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


It's still human behaviour.

So what?



It's human behaviour.

And you support one and oppose the other, so why are you using war in an
analogy with farming?





You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

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


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

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

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


It doesn't prevent killing.

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


That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for
indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake.

Nobody lives merely to survive, that just is another version of the failed
"necessity" argument.


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

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

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

Which is part of human behaviour.

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


No it's not both are morally wrong.

Yet war is sometimes a fight for survival. Farming, although it kills
animals in great numbers, frequently is not. Isn't it funny how simplistic
notions come back to bite you on the ass?

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



I haven't.

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



Not at all.

Yes, badly.


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

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

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

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

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

It's you who has everything upside down.

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


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

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


In what way?

By making statements that you can't support.

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

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


Ditto.

Who are you and what are doing here?

Very easily sorting out trolls :-))

You may be wasting people's time, but making an ass of yourself is hardly
sorting anyone out.


Are you playing with daddy's computer?


Are you playing with mummy's

I thought so.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:17:29 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

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


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

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



Of course they are. It involves "rights".

What does? What the hell are you talking about?

I've already covered that. Look back.

I've been following along, you haven't covered anything.


You haven't followed closely enough.





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


All part of human behaviour.

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


It's all human behaviour.

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



I have already defended it.

Defended what?



The logic of my position.

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted it.

Of course I have. See my previous posts.







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

Lets have some specifics in detail.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


I'm not.

Yes you did. When I noted that you subsidize the systematic destruction of
animals in farming you replied that humans are systematically killed in war,
as if that were a valid analogy.


The context of that was that if humans have rights and are slaughtered
- not only in war - then animals should have rights as well because it
would save some in certain circumstances just like humans.



I'm against war but not against farming.

Yet you call war "normal" and used war as a vehicle to deflect criticism of
the way you sponsor the killing of animals in farming. You are not making
sense.


Where did I say it was "normal"? It's human behaviour. There's no
escaping that!


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

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

Who said I was a vegan?

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


Same thing .

So what's the problem?



I don't have a problem.

You're just hanging by a thread aren't you?


Yours has snapped.


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


Just like war in and around the world.

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


It's still human behaviour.

So what?



It's human behaviour.

And you support one and oppose the other, so why are you using war in an
analogy with farming?


I'm not. See above.






You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

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


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

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

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


It doesn't prevent killing.

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


That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for
indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake.

Nobody lives merely to survive, that just is another version of the failed
"necessity" argument.



If animals weren't killed we wouldn't survive.



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

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

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

Which is part of human behaviour.

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


No it's not both are morally wrong.

Yet war is sometimes a fight for survival. Farming, although it kills
animals in great numbers, frequently is not. Isn't it funny how simplistic
notions come back to bite you on the ass?


Farming is sometimes a fight for survival. .Isn't it funny how
simplistic notions come back to bite you on the ass?


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



I haven't.

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



Not at all.

Yes, badly.


No.



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

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

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

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

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

It's you who has everything upside down.

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


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

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


In what way?

By making statements that you can't support.


I've supported all my statements.



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

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


Ditto.

Who are you and what are doing here?

Very easily sorting out trolls :-))

You may be wasting people's time, but making an ass of yourself is hardly
sorting anyone out.


So why do you do it?


Are you playing with daddy's computer?


Are you playing with mummy's

I thought so.


Thought is not one of your strong points.


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

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

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:17:29 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

wrote in message
news:9gk5831v0ih7ti2h5lnk71skcmhd722k7m@4ax. com...
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

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


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

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



Of course they are. It involves "rights".

What does? What the hell are you talking about?

I've already covered that. Look back.

I've been following along, you haven't covered anything.


You haven't followed closely enough.

You haven't said anything worth following. You're making snap responses with
no thought.





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


All part of human behaviour.

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


It's all human behaviour.

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



I have already defended it.

Defended what?



The logic of my position.

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted it.

Of course I have. See my previous posts.

There's nothing worth looking at.









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

Lets have some specifics in detail.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


I'm not.

Yes you did. When I noted that you subsidize the systematic destruction of
animals in farming you replied that humans are systematically killed in
war,
as if that were a valid analogy.


The context of that was that if humans have rights and are slaughtered
- not only in war - then animals should have rights as well because it
would save some in certain circumstances just like humans.

That does not follow, it's a fallacy of the form...
Humans have rights, and humans are slaughtered.
Animals are slaughtered, therefore animals have rights.

I think that is "affirmation of the consequent"

I'm against war but not against farming.

Yet you call war "normal" and used war as a vehicle to deflect criticism
of
the way you sponsor the killing of animals in farming. You are not making
sense.


Where did I say it was "normal"? It's human behaviour. There's no
escaping that!

You implied war was normal several times, you raise it as an argument in a
discussion about farming. War may be common, but the acts of war are not
valid indicators of moral behaviour outside war.

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

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

Who said I was a vegan?

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


Same thing .

So what's the problem?



I don't have a problem.

You're just hanging by a thread aren't you?


Yours has snapped.

My patience with your dogged stupidity is close to snapping.

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


Just like war in and around the world.

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


It's still human behaviour.

So what?



It's human behaviour.

And you support one and oppose the other, so why are you using war in an
analogy with farming?


I'm not. See above.

Above I see your confusion and backpedaling






You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

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


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

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

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


It doesn't prevent killing.

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


That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for
indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake.

Nobody lives merely to survive, that just is another version of the failed
"necessity" argument.



If animals weren't killed we wouldn't survive.

You're wasting my time.




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

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

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

Which is part of human behaviour.

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


No it's not both are morally wrong.

Yet war is sometimes a fight for survival. Farming, although it kills
animals in great numbers, frequently is not. Isn't it funny how simplistic
notions come back to bite you on the ass?


Farming is sometimes a fight for survival. .Isn't it funny how
simplistic notions come back to bite you on the ass?

More time wasting.



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



I haven't.

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



Not at all.

Yes, badly.


No.

Oh yea. You stopped having the slightest idea what's going on about the
second post.

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

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

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

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

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

It's you who has everything upside down.

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


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

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


In what way?

By making statements that you can't support.


I've supported all my statements.

None of them.




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

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


Ditto.

Who are you and what are doing here?

Very easily sorting out trolls :-))

You may be wasting people's time, but making an ass of yourself is hardly
sorting anyone out.


So why do you do it?


Are you playing with daddy's computer?


Are you playing with mummy's

I thought so.


Thought is not one of your strong points.

Incorrect, thought *is* my strong point. You are not thinking at ALL.

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

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

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

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

self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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

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

Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour.
You're trying to say that human deaths are comparable
to the animal deaths in which you needlessly
participate. I have demonstrated elsewhere exactly why
they're not comparable. Go read the other posts.


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

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

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



You're deluding yourself

No.


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

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

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

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


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

Of course they are.

No, and you know they aren't, too.


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



I know differently.

We know that you ran away, fearfully.


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


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

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



Parrot

Stupid unserious ****.


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


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



Parrot

Stupid unserious ****.


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

Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.
Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better. War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not like
food production at all.

Nonsense.
No.

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


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



There's

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



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


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


Not at all.
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



Inability to respond noted.



So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing of
livestock as brutal and immoral?
Who said I was a vegan?
You're vegetarian, and you are so for phony so-called
"ethical" reasons.
Who said?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Who's that?
You, angie girl.

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



Inability to respond noted.

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

Just like war in and around the world.
Not comparable, for reasons I have given which you have
ignored because you know you're beaten.


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


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



Of course I have.

You haven't, angie girl. You never even tried. You
wouldn't know how.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.

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

You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts
are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with.
You have no basis except leftist ideology for
disagreeing. What he stated is true, and he has not
contradicted himself, angie girl.


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


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

Inability to respond noted.



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


Implied.
False. Stop lying.


Not false.

Yes, false, angie girl. Stop lying.


And humans are not *systematically* slaughtered by
their own species as humans do systematically slaughter
wild animals so that you, angie girl, can eat.
What "wild" animals do I eat?
I didn't say you eat any animals, angie girl. I said
that wild animals are slaughtered so that you can eat.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.


Inability to respond noted.



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


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



See above.

You wrote incoherent bullshit above.


I have explained that wildlife is killed by all of us in our daily
lives to survive.
But *you*, angie girl, claim to believe in animal
"rights". These killing are violations of those
so-called "rights", yet you do nothing to stop your
participation. You're a lying hypocrite, angie girl.



What rights?

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


Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it
happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't
really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn
Africa.
It does not happen daily in developed countries as a
systematic feature of social organization and activity,
angie girl, and it does not happen in anything remotely
close to the scope and scale that it does to animals.

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


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


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



Inability to respond noted.

So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.
Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.
It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have
everything upside down.
It's you who has everything upside down.
No, angie girl. We have your disgusting hypocrisy and
sanctimony right side up, in plain sight.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

You haven't answered the question.
I stuffed it down your throat, angie girl.


You still haven't answered the question.

You didn't ask any legitimate question, lying little
angie girl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza

If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals
are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false
analogy,
we are not at war with animals.
Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace
So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are
implying.

Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour.
Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.


Of course they are.
No.


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


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

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

It's all human behaviour.
So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.


I have already defended it.
Not once. You wouldn't have a clue how to start.


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

Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.
Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better.
War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not
like
food production at all.

Nonsense. Many territorial wars have been fought for fertile land to
grow crops; and will be in the future; probably sooner than later.
So in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm

War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour
We're talking about your daily violation of animal
"rights", which demonstrates your hypocrisy.


So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the
deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing
of
livestock as brutal and immoral?
Who said I was a vegan?
I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".

Same thing .
No.

But you are a fatuous "ethical vegetarian", if not a
full-fledged loony "vegan".


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

Just like war in and around the world.
No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.

It's still human behaviour.
non sequitur

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


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.

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

You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts
are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with.
Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.

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

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

Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it
happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't
really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn
Africa.
War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.
Which is part of human behaviour.
non sequitur


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


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


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of
everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.
Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.
It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have
everything upside down.
It's you who has everything upside down.
How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?

Both are human behaviour.
non sequitur

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


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

Ditto.
non sequitur

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


See my other bullshit, in which I also couldn't defend my position. I never could; didn't even know how to start.
Angus Macmillan

Exactly right.

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.

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

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

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

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

See my other snarky, unserious, bitchy bullshit.

Angus Macmillan
Already seen, already disposed of, angie girl.


Getting the living shit kicked out of me shows how desperate I've gotten.


Angus Macmillan

It sure does, angie girl.

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

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

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

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

You're a liar.
In what way?
In every way, angie girl.

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

See my other unserious, sophomoric, snarky bullshit post

Angus Macmillan
Already disposed of, little bitch angie girl.


I can't defend my position.


Angus Macmillan

We can see that, angie girl.

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

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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

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

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

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza

If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some
could
be saved.
Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.
They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does
not
depend on oil?
War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human
morals
are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false
analogy,
we are not at war with animals.
Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace
So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are
implying.

Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour.
Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.


Of course they are. It involves "rights".
What does? What the hell are you talking about?

I've already evaded that and spouted bullshit.

Yes, you did.


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

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

It's all human behaviour.
So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.


I have already defended it.
Defended what?



The illogic of my position.

You couldn't defend it, angie girl.


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

Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.
Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better.
War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not
like
food production at all.

Nonsense. Many territorial wars have been fought for fertile land to
grow crops; and will be in the future; probably sooner than later.
So in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm

War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour and I don't oppose
farming.
Then why are you using war as analagous to farming? The only thing they have
in common is that they both involve killing by humans. They are not morally
equivalent.


I'm not.

You are, angie girl.



I'm against war but not against farming.

You claim to be against the needless slaughter of
animals, but your behavior proves otherwise.


So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.
Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the
deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the
killing
of
livestock as brutal and immoral?
Who said I was a vegan?
I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".

Same thing .
So what's the problem?



I don't have a problem.

You do: a thorough inability to think clearly, as well
as an inability to defend your silly, hyper-emotional
position.


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

Just like war in and around the world.
No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.

It's still human behaviour.
So what?



It's human behaviour.

Irrelevant. We're talking about your beliefs and your
behavior which contradicts your so-called beliefs.


You're contradicting yourself
above.
In what way?

Read what you wrote.
Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.

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

You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts
are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with.
Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.

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


That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for
indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake.

And yet you do it, daily.



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

Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it
happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't
really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn
Africa.
War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.
Which is part of human behaviour.
But it's not a moral example, it's the opposite. It's like arguing that it's
all right to commit murder because soldiers shoot one another.


No it's not both are morally wrong.

incoherent bullshit.


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


I haven't.
Is that supposed to be a response? You're floundering.



Not at all.

Completely. You can't defend your position, angie
girl; wouldn't even know how to start.

You're not a serious contributor. No "ara" is.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.
That is a lame response.
Not at all; it's fact.
The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of
everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not
analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.
Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.
It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and
the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the
killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You
have
everything upside down.
It's you who has everything upside down.
How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?

Both are human behaviour. War is immoral and I don't oppose farming.
Sorry friend, but you have dug yourself a hole that you have not got the
faintest hope of climbing out of.


In what way?

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


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

Ditto.
Who are you and what are doing here?

****ing away my worthless time, and trying to **** away the time of others.

We're toying with you, angie girl.


Are you playing with daddy's computer?


I'm playing with mummy's


Angus Macmillan

So.

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.

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


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

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

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie wrote
None are so blind as those who don't wish to see.

Now that's ironic.

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.

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.

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

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

On 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.


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

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