Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:22:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:58:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not depend on oil? War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy, we are not at war with animals. Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are implying. Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour. You're trying to say that human deaths are comparable to the animal deaths in which you needlessly participate. I have demonstrated elsewhere exactly why they're not comparable. Go read the other posts. They're all a result of human behaviour. They're fundamentally different, angie girl, for reasons I've noted from which you have fearfully run away. I see You see that I've beaten you bloody, angie girl. It's been a pleasure. You've run away from my explanation every time, angie girl. *You* are the one who can't cope, angie girl. The valid analogy in this case is human labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals. All part of human behaviour. So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human behaviour. It's all human behaviour. It is not condoned in the same way you condone, daily, the slaughter of animals on your behalf. Variations in condoning is also human behaviour The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for reasons I've elaborated that you have fearfully avoided addressing. Humans have rights, and the relative infrequency of lethal accidents to humans is reflected in that. Animals do not have right, and consequently they are slaughtered indiscriminately, including in the course of putting food in your hypocritical mouth. Humans have rights and are slaughtered indiscriminately. No, angie girl, they aren't. You're lying. They aren't slaughtered indiscriminately, and you know it. You also know there are differences in scale and scope, and you also know that there is nothing systematic about it. Yes, angie girl, you know that the animal deaths and human deaths are qualitatively different, and thus are not comparable. You know this, angie girl, but you run away from it, in fear. Your attempt at a _tu quoque_ has been rebuffed. You have not morally justified your participation in needless animal slaughter. I oppose needless animal slaughter. I don't oppose farming. You *participate* in processes that include "needless" animal slaughter as an inherent part of the operation. "Needless" animal slaughter occurred in the course of producing every speck of food you eat. The slaughter itself is "needless", in the sense that the food could, at great expense, be produced without doing it; but more to the point, angie girl, YOUR participation in the process is entirely needless, as you could, if you really took animal "rights" seriously, withdraw from the process altogether. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. But you don't, angie girl - you don't, because you're a hypocrite. Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the job. Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not survive. Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better. War is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not like food production at all. Nonsense. No. Yes. No, angie girl, it isn't nonsense. Blurting "nonsense" is not a coherent or rational response, angie girl. Why do you do it? I don't, angie girl. I give coherent and rational responses to your squealing bullshit, and you then try to act cute and pose bad faith, unserious questions; then you run away, fearfully. Give it up, angie girl. Human wars on one another have nothing to do with your failure to justify your participation in animal slaughter. They are the result of human behaviour. Repeating your absurd comment won't lend any more meaning to it, angie girl. The human deaths are not comparable to the massive slaughter of animals in agriculture, angie girl. There are serious qualitative differences that I have elaborated, and from which you have fearfully run away. Not at all. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the deliberate, systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing of livestock as brutal and immoral? Who said I was a vegan? You're vegetarian, and you are so for phony so-called "ethical" reasons. Who said? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Who's that? You, angie girl. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production and gathering of food. Just like war in and around the world. Not comparable, for reasons I have given which you have ignored because you know you're beaten. In your dreams. No, in the hard light of day, angie girl. You are beaten, angie girl. You can't defend your bogus "ethical" beliefs, and so you didn't even try. I have already. You haven't, angie girl; you never even tried. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself. You say, "Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock" Which I agree with. You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with. You have no basis except leftist ideology for disagreeing. What he stated is true, and he has not contradicted himself, angie girl. Tell that to the Iraqis, the Sudanese and the Palestinians. We're talking about YOUR needless participation in processes that slaughter animals, angie girl. Trying to point the finger at someone else is ethically wrong and logically invalid. You claim to support animal "rights", angie girl, yet you participate daily in processes that routinely and massively violate those so-called rights. Leave the Iraqis and Sudanese and Palestinians out of it, angie girl - this is about you and your failure to live up to your so-called "ethics". Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits by their own species? He didn't say by their own species, angie girl. You fabricated that. I'm just pointing it out . You fabricated "it", angie girl. He didn't say it or imply it. Implied. False. Stop lying. And humans are not *systematically* slaughtered by their own species as humans do systematically slaughter wild animals so that you, angie girl, can eat. What "wild" animals do I eat? I didn't say you eat any animals, angie girl. I said that wild animals are slaughtered so that you can eat. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. It is so. You may not eat any animal bits at all, angie girl, but that doesn't mean that wild animals don't die in the course of getting food to your table. They do. I don't disagree. You don't need to participate in it, angie girl. Your voluntary participation gives the lie to your claim to "respect the so-called "rights" of animals, angie girl. You do not "respect" any so-called "rights" of animals, angie girl - you violate them daily. I have explained that wildlife is killed by all of us in our daily lives to survive. But *you*, angie girl, claim to believe in animal "rights". These killing are violations of those so-called "rights", yet you do nothing to stop your participation. You're a lying hypocrite, angie girl. Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn Africa. It does not happen daily in developed countries as a systematic feature of social organization and activity, angie girl, and it does not happen in anything remotely close to the scope and scale that it does to animals. You know this, angie girl, but you keep feigning blindness. Take a trip to Baghdad Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. See above. Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to war which is the very antithesis of everyday life. Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life. It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have everything upside down. It's you who has everything upside down. No, angie girl. We have your disgusting hypocrisy and sanctimony right side up, in plain sight. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You haven't answered the question. I stuffed it down your throat, angie girl. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|