Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com... snippage.. Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't I criticize people for supporting such abuses? ========================== And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care about animals when ALL they do is avoid meat. Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do significantly more than just avoid meat. It is equally right of us to criticize those that ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining about what they think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the deaths of billions of animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you are just blowing hot air and hypocrisy, fool. That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society. That is true of you as well. snippage... If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it justified? ======================= there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for potatoes. There is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those causes far more brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in slaughterhouses. Why do you think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer? If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't really think that. You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes, that means they're not entitled to make any criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously utterly absurd. It's a joke. Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the line somewhere. Your view is that only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my view is more hypocritical than yours. Why is the place where you draw the line preferable to the place where I draw the line? That's the point you've got to argue, but you never make a decent attempt at it, you just endlessly repeat the farcical assertion that you should either boycott rice and potatoes or else refrain from making any criticism whatsoever of modern farming. It's a joke. Hey, maybe I should boycott rice and potatoes, you are welcome to argue the case if you want to. But it's not what you really believe, so what's all the fuss about? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|