On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

[..]

You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.

Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.

What are those reasons?

Read my previous posts.

They provide nothing material.

But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.

Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.

So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.

You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.

[..]

Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.

That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

"Rupert" wrote
On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy. It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.


What judgmental attitude? What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones".

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.


What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones".


Get more specific. Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs? You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".


Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman. We may very well agree that the status
quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?


Which judgmental attitude of ARAs?

The attitude that using animals as products is immoral.

You have lots of judgmental
attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

See above.

On Jul 3, 10:49 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 2, 7:19 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 2, 5:06 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.

What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are
doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because
her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a
blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.

It is a tu_quoque but it's not a fallacy.

If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should not
throw
stones".

Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.


Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at
all. Is that the story?

Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo? That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman.

That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status
quo?

We may very well agree that the status
quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.


In what respects do we disagree?

It is intended to change a
judgmental attitude by introducing an expanded context.

What judgmental attitude?

The judgmental attitude of ARAs, what else?

Which judgmental attitude of ARAs?

The attitude that using animals as products is immoral.


Which counterexamples are you advocating?

You have lots of judgmental

attitudes about all sorts of things too. Get specific.

What, exactly, is it supposed to prove? Get
specific.

See above.

And nobody is defending "the status quo" per se.

Fascinating. So what's your point?

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of time.

Yawn.

See above.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:44:10 -0700, Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 26, 6:39 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

[..]

You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.

Not at all. For the reasons I have already given.

What are those reasons?

Read my previous posts.

They provide nothing material.

But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of
them in the past few years in Iraq.

Not comparable to the way you participate in the
killing of animals.

So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures.

You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of
animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people.

[..]

Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not
intentionally.

That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in
agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which
would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic
deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a
diversion.

It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy.


What's all this rubbish about tu quoque? You're the ones who are doing
the tu quoque. You're trying to say she has no valid criticisms to
make of the status quo regarding our treatment of animals, because her
contribution to animal suffering and death is not zero. It's a blatant
tu quoque and it proves absolutely nothing.


You wont get any sense out of Jonny Ball, he has short legs and is
bald you know? ;-)