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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.

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


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


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


In exactly the same way as humans

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

Why not?


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


No you didn't.



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


Wjy?


You're a liar.

In what way?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


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

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

Why not?

See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


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


No you didn't.

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


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


Wjy?

You're a bitch, angie girl.


You're a liar.

In what way?

In every way, angie girl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.

But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.

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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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

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

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

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

Why not?

See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.

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

No you didn't.

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

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

Wjy?

You're a bitch, angie girl.

You're a liar.

In what way?

In every way, angie girl.

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




still abusing wimmin eh, Goober?

What a chickenshit putz!







- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


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

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

Why not?

See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


Where above?


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


No you didn't.

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



Whiffed off from what?


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


Wjy?

You're a bitch, angie girl.



In what way?


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?


..


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.
In exactly the same way as humans
Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.
Why not?
See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


Where above?

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


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

No you didn't.
Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above.
Predictably, you whiffed off from it.



Whiffed off from what?

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


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

Wjy?
You're a bitch, angie girl.



In what way?

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


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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.
In exactly the same way as humans
Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.
Why not?
See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


Where above?

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



I don't see it. You're confused. Try a Beechams pill.



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

No you didn't.
Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above.
Predictably, you whiffed off from it.



Whiffed off from what?

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



Why?


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

Wjy?
You're a bitch, angie girl.



In what way?

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



How?


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?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.
In exactly the same way as humans
Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.
Why not?
See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


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



I don't see it.

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

You're beaten.


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

No you didn't.
Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above.
Predictably, you whiffed off from it.


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



Why?

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


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


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



How?

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


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

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


In what way?

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

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:30:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
[..]
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.
What are those reasons?
Read my previous posts.
They provide nothing material.





But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.
Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.
So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.
You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.
[..]
Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.
That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.
See my other response.
Your other response, of course, was bullshit,
self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its
core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your
FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs,
angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of
the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl
- that's bullshit.
Of course it is
Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write.
You are utterly unable to defend your silly,
feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal
"rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky
sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl.
What I wrote was:
What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you
do, angie girl.


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

- scope
- scale
- systematization
- lack of consequences

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

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


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


and that's why your argument is crap.
No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are
not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid
the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you
choose instead to participate.
In exactly the same way as humans
Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little
bitch angie girl.
Why not?
See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl.


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



I don't see it.

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

You're beaten.


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

No you didn't.
Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above.
Predictably, you whiffed off from it.


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



Why?

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


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


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



How?

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


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

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


In what way?

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


See other post



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

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