Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 5, 12:25 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message roups.com... On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message groups.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. ======================== Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily. Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller than most people's. =============== Yet another claim you ahve yet to prove. You cannot assume that being vegan or AR automatically means fewer animals die for your lifestyle. We've been over this quite a few times. I think I've provided enough evidence for my claim that a vegan lifestyle has less impact on animals than a typical Western lifestyle that it's reasonable to ask you to provide some evidence to the contrary. (There may be *some* non- vegan lifestyles that are just as good, I don't deny this. You seem to be having trouble keeping track of the distinction between the two issues). 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. ======================= ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet do nothing but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid to call hypocrites like you to task, killer. I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. ================== Yes fool, you are. I recognize and understand that every aspect of my life kills animals. So do I. I don't pretend, like you do, that by avoiding one particular product that I am doing anything to kill fewer. What are the reasons for doubting that? It's absurd to say that my behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of evidence that I care about animals. ========================== There's all the dead animals you kill to prove otherwise, hypocrite. Elaborate. How many animals did I kill in the last year? Bearing in mind that the electricity I use is produced by solar panels. And how about the facts on the other side of the balance, that I've made many significant changes to my lifestyle to reduce my impact on animals, much more than most people, and that I volunteer a lot of my time to an organization which aims to improve the situation of animals. What rational grounds do you have for saying that these facts mean nothing? If they do, then no-one cares about animals. Do you really find that a plausible contention? You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. ===================== Yes, I do. You're own actions prove your hypocrisy, killer. Rubbish, as explained many times. What is the difference between you and me that entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares about animals in the slightest? What a joke. ===================== No, you don't care about animals killer. that's the whole point. You only pay lip service to some religion, but do nothing in reality to live up to your claims. That's palpable, laughable rubbish. No rational person would take it seriously for a moment. I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just that doing so by killing even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool... Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer? Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that. =================== No fool, anyone that claims to save animals by not eating them and then uses usenet to proclaim their hypocrisy is what I am saying, killer. Which is stupid. I believe that the changes I have made to my diet have reduced my expected contribution to animal suffering and death, and I think I have provided some good, solid evidence for this. I also acknowledge that when I use electricity over and above what is produced by our house's solar panels, that increases my expected contribution to animal suffering and death by an amount greater than zero. So what's the problem? Where's the evidence of hypocrisy? thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. Yawn. 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. ================== No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a concern to you. Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity, and God knows what else. It's a farce. =========================== No fool, those are your strawmen, killer. No. It's clearly what you're saying. You said I don't care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for saying that unless you believe some farcical statement like the one above. I'm giving you information about how you COULD make a difference, but like all hypocritical wannbe vegans here on usenet, you are more concerned about YOUR selfishness and entertainment. There are lots of ways I could make a difference, and I do a lot to make a difference, a lot more than most people. In particular, my parents have bought solar panels which reduce the impact of my electricity consumption, and I will buy solar panels myself when I am living by myself and can afford them. As with everyone else, there are some limits to what I am prepared to do. You don't do any more than me, so what grounds have you got for criticizing me? Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. ======================= You keep proving otherwise, killer. That's utterly absurd. How? Argue the point. Thanks for a great display of hypocrisy. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's absurd. ================ It's your claims that are absurd, killer. 'Fraid not. However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as a stepping stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool. That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you. ========================= LOL I call you that from your actions, killer. Despite your claims, you needlessly, unnecessarily, and brutally kill far more animals than necessary for your life. Why? because you value YOUR entertainment and convenience far more than any concern for animals. I do not "brutally kill" anything. I consume some products whose production caused some animal deaths. A lot less than most people, in particular most of my electricity consumption is cruelty-free. You consume products whose production caused animal deaths at least as much as me, of course. So why is it that I am hypocritical and you are not? Because you don't claim to care about animals, you say. So anyone who claims to care about animals and uses usenet is a hypocrite? Well, that's a joke. We go over this over and over again. 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. ==================== No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant claims of 'saving' animals from unnecessary death and suffering. Yes, it is. =[================= Yes, your claims are a joke. Thanks for agreeing, and proving your hypocrisy, killer... Imbecile. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? ================== And nothing hypocrite. that was a complete and factual statement. Yes, I agree. The same is true of everyone else, of course, in most cases to a much greater extent. So what? 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. ========================== LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim animals should not be killed just to produce food for people. Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population healthy, no. ========================= yet you continue to prove otherwise, killer. There is no survival or health need for you to be on usenet, nor to eat your varity of imported foods and spices. I use solar panels. You haven't established that my usenet usage causes any deaths whatsoever. You've been lamely arguing that Google might get more advertising revenue from my actions, I don't think that's very plausible unless I click on the ads. You don't know anything about how much imported food and spices I eat, and while I can see that this is a concern from the point of view of global warming, you haven't elaborated on how it bears on animals specifically. I do not believe that I cause significantly more animal suffering and death than is necessary to keep me healthy. To argue otherwise you would have to come up with a reasonable estimate for how much suffering and death I actually cause. You've never attempted this task. Yet there you are, doing just that. Plus, killing them for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy. No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering. ==================== Which you prove otherwise with every inane post you make fool. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy yet again, killer. Nonsense. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. ========================= One based solely on your convenience and entertainment witrhout regard to the number of animals that die. No, not at all. That's obvious nonsense. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. There's no reason why there's any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone else chooses to draw the line. I've explained this time and time again, and you continue to misrepresent my position. And you call me foolish. You've got no grounds for calling me hypocritical, and your failure to realize this after all these years is evidence of bigotry and stupidity. ======================= I suggest you look up the term, killer. the claims you make, and the actions you take are hypocrisy in spades, killer. Hypocrisy means failing to act in accordance with your stated moral beliefs. You usually get my moral beliefs wrong. You've yet to demonstrate that my actions are inconsistent with my actual moral beliefs. 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? =========================== The fuss is about your willful ignorance and hypocrisy, killer. You've shown no evidence of either. ===================== ROTFLMAO You've done that for me with every post fool. Mores the pity that you still fail understand that, hypocrite. As explained several times, this is a joke. More's the pity that you still fail to understand *that*. But then, I expect you do nothing except kill animals willy-nilly, just as you have done all along. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, fool. You're a joke. =============== No, i've proven how big the joke is on you, killer. 'Fraid not. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|