Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. 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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. It's your reflection :-)) 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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is; you write it all the time. 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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. It's It's you, angie girl. You have that deer-in-the-headlights look. Thanks for again demonstrating that you're not a serious poster, angie girl. You can't defend your position, so all you do is engage in snarky, juvenile sarcasm. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. It's your reflection :-)) Another telling non sequitur. Extremely lame attempts at humor notwithstanding, you appear shell-shocked. That's actually good for you, you just don't realize it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was:"Of course it is; you write it all the time." You're wallowing in your own mire. 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. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. 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) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. 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. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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? 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. You're contradicting yourself above. 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. 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) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. 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. 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. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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 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. 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. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. 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. 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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|