Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com... On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote: "Rupert" wrote in message ups.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. 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. 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. You've got no rational grounds for criticizing me. 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. What a wheezy whining windbag you are. 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. 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. Different people have different levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive that most people's. 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. 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. 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. You have NO requirement to eat either one, yet you do for your convinience. And? 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. Vague and open to interpertation. 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. The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation. Like almost everything you say. I have chosen a certain place to draw the line. 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. You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|