|
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
wrote in message .. . On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. It's your reflection :-)) Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is; you write it all the time. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. It's It's you, angie girl. You have that deer-in-the-headlights look. Thanks for again demonstrating that you're not a serious poster, angie girl. You can't defend your position, so all you do is engage in snarky, juvenile sarcasm. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: See my other response. All I see is someone who appears shell-shocked. It's your reflection :-)) Another telling non sequitur. Extremely lame attempts at humor notwithstanding, you appear shell-shocked. That's actually good for you, you just don't realize it. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was:"Of course it is; you write it all the time." You're wallowing in your own mire. 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. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. 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. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
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? 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. You're contradicting yourself above. 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. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. 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. 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. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? 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. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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 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. 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. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. 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. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
angie girl whiffed off again:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
|
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans in the lifestyle you lead which uses oil. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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 No, 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. Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too. The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands, unanswered. You *can't* answer it. 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. Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating, daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought" to hold. No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow all your own using methods that did not systematically slaughter animals. But no - you choose, because you're a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience, to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the while blabbering away sanctimoniously and hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl. He didn't contradict himself. 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. Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim is empty; it's bullshit. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. You're a liar. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza
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 No, angie girl. What is it if it's not human behaviour? 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. Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too. Why is it not part of human behaviour? The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands, unanswered. You *can't* answer it. Not at all for the reasons given. 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. Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating, daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought" to hold. Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong. No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow all your own using methods that did not systematically slaughter animals. But I don't oppose farming. But no - you choose, because you're a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience, to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the while blabbering away sanctimoniously and hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights. See above. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl. No. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl. He didn't contradict himself. You're as daft as he is. 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. Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim is empty; it's bullshit. Why? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? 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. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. 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. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. Why not? I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. No you didn't. You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. Wjy? You're a liar. In what way? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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? It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production and gathering of food. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself. 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. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza 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 No, angie girl. What is it if it's not human behaviour? 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. Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too. Why is it not part of human behaviour? It is qualitatively different from the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl. The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands, unanswered. You *can't* answer it. Not at all Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it. for the reasons given. You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm. 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. Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating, daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought" to hold. Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong. You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your* food's production causes animals needlessly to be slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything concrete to avoid the needless death of animals. No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow all your own using methods that did not systematically slaughter animals. But I don't oppose farming. You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly, indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits, angie girl, then it has no rights at all. You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl. But no - you choose, because you're a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience, to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the while blabbering away sanctimoniously and hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights. See above. You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy, and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out of it. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl. No. Yes, angie girl, you do. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl. He didn't contradict himself. You're as daft as he is. Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself. 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. Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim is empty; it's bullshit. Why? See my earlier replies. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. 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. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. 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. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. Why not? See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl. I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. No you didn't. Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above. Predictably, you whiffed off from it. You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. Wjy? You're a bitch, angie girl. You're a liar. In what way? In every way, angie girl. Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs, little bitch angie girl. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jun 27, 1:37 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. Why not? See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl. I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. No you didn't. Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above. Predictably, you whiffed off from it. You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. Wjy? You're a bitch, angie girl. You're a liar. In what way? In every way, angie girl. Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs, little bitch angie girl. still abusing wimmin eh, Goober? What a chickenshit putz! - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. 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. 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. Many territorial wars have been fought for fertile land to grow crops; and will be in the future; probably sooner than later. 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? 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. 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. Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits by their own species? 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. 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. Read what I have written and don't jump to conclusions. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza 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 No, angie girl. What is it if it's not human behaviour? 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. Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too. Why is it not part of human behaviour? It is qualitatively different from the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl. Why ? The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands, unanswered. You *can't* answer it. Not at all Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it. I have answered it. for the reasons given. You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm. Read what I wrote. 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. Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating, daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought" to hold. Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong. You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your* food's production causes animals needlessly to be slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything concrete to avoid the needless death of animals. In what way? No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow all your own using methods that did not systematically slaughter animals. But I don't oppose farming. You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly, indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits, angie girl, then it has no rights at all. Neither do humans and it happens every day. Where have you been all your life? You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl. How? But no - you choose, because you're a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience, to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the while blabbering away sanctimoniously and hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights. See above. You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy, and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out of it. Where? So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl. No. Yes, angie girl, you do. No. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl. He didn't contradict himself. You're as daft as he is. Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself. Yes. 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. Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim is empty; it's bullshit. Why? See my earlier replies. See mine. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? 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. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. 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. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. If you haven't the intelligence to comprehend I suggest you ask some ten-year-old to help you. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. Why not? See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl. Where above? I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. No you didn't. Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above. Predictably, you whiffed off from it. Whiffed off from what? You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. Wjy? You're a bitch, angie girl. In what way? You're a liar. In what way? In every way, angie girl. Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs, little bitch angie girl. Where have I admitted anything? .. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. 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. Your attempt at a _tu quoque_ has been rebuffed. You have not morally justified your participation in needless animal slaughter. 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. Give it up, angie girl. Human wars on one another have nothing to do with your failure to justify your participation in animal slaughter. 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. 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. 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. 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. And humans are not *systematically* slaughtered by their own species as humans do systematically slaughter wild animals so that you, angie girl, can eat. 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. 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. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza 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 No, angie girl. What is it if it's not human behaviour? 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. Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too. Why is it not part of human behaviour? It is qualitatively different from the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl. Why ? See my other replies, snarky sophomoric angie girl. The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands, unanswered. You *can't* answer it. Not at all Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it. I have answered it. You haven't, angie girl. You can't. You've danced and tried to evade, and have looked stupid, but you haven't answered it. for the reasons given. You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm. Read what I wrote. You wrote evasive, sophomoric bullshit. 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. Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating, daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought" to hold. Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong. You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your* food's production causes animals needlessly to be slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything concrete to avoid the needless death of animals. In what way? In all ways, sophomoric little angie girl. No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow all your own using methods that did not systematically slaughter animals. But I don't oppose farming. You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly, indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits, angie girl, then it has no rights at all. Neither do humans and it happens every day. Where have you been all your life? You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl. How? In every way, sophomoric unserious little angie girl. But no - you choose, because you're a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience, to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the while blabbering away sanctimoniously and hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights. See above. You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy, and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out of it. Where? Every post of yours, angie girl. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl. No. Yes, angie girl, you do. No. Yes, angie girl, you do. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl. He didn't contradict himself. You're as daft as he is. Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. I showed you already. You know where, angie girl, so no need to do your cutesy unfunny unserious question routine. 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. Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim is empty; it's bullshit. Why? See my earlier replies. See mine. They were bullshit, angie girl. You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? In the thread, angie girl. Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious purpose, angie girl. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you 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. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. 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. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy, regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl, because you don't have the ability to examine your stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie girl - it's a pose. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. Why not? See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl. Where above? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. No you didn't. Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above. Predictably, you whiffed off from it. Whiffed off from what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. Wjy? You're a bitch, angie girl. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're a liar. In what way? In every way, angie girl. Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs, little bitch angie girl. Where have I admitted anything? In every post, angie girl, you admit by your failure to respond coherently that you can't defend your beliefs. Every time you smirk and giggle and pose one of your unserious, bad faith questions, angie girl, you are admitting your inability to defend your beliefs. |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. In fact why not take a trip to Baghdad, get kidnapped and find out just how much YOUR life is worth? 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 . 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? 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 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? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:02:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza 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 No, angie girl. What is it if it's not human behaviour? 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. Not the same, angie girl. You know it, too. Why is it not part of human behaviour? It is qualitatively different from the collateral and deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl. Why ? See my other replies, snarky sophomoric angie girl. Where? The charge of gross hypocrisy against you stands, unanswered. You *can't* answer it. Not at all Yes, at all, angie girl; you can't answer it. I have answered it. You haven't, angie girl. You can't. You've danced and tried to evade, and have looked stupid, but you haven't answered it. Of course I've answered it. for the reasons given. You haven't given any reasons, angie girl. All you've given is evasion and snarky, sophomoric sarcasm. Read what I wrote. You wrote evasive, sophomoric bullshit. No. 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. Oh, really? So, your "survival" depends on abrogating, daily, the "rights" you claim animals hold or "ought" to hold. Every animal has a right to survive and that includes humans. So it follows that we have a right to kill for food but killing for aimless reasons such as fun and enjoyment and fake conservation is wrong. You have no coherent explanation for where you draw the line, angie girl. The fact is, angie girl, that *your* food's production causes animals needlessly to be slaughtered. You *could* avoid it, angie girl, but you're a lazy **** who can't be bothered to do anything concrete to avoid the needless death of animals. In what way? In all ways, sophomoric little angie girl. How? No, angie girl. You do not "need" to eat a single speck of commercially raised produce. You could, if you weren't such a lazy little bitch, get out and grow all your own using methods that did not systematically slaughter animals. But I don't oppose farming. You claim to support animal "rights", and if an animal doesn't have a "right" not to be needlessly, indiscriminately and systematically chopped to bits, angie girl, then it has no rights at all. Neither do humans and it happens every day. Where have you been all your life? You are being deliberately obtuse, angie girl. How? In every way, sophomoric unserious little angie girl. You don't know :-)) But no - you choose, because you're a lazy little bitch addicted to ease and convenience, to gobble down the blood-drenched produce, all the while blabbering away sanctimoniously and hypocritically about how you "respect" the "rights" of animals. It's a lie - you do not "respect" any rights. See above. You wrote self-serving, mushy bullshit above, angie girl. You are caught in a web of lies and hypocrisy, and you aren't even making a serious attempt to get out of it. Where? Every post of yours, angie girl. How do you know every post I write? So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. But YOU do it entirely needlessly, angie girl. No. Yes, angie girl, you do. No. Yes, angie girl, you do. No. You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Evasion noted. You're a laugh riot, angie girl. He didn't contradict himself. You're as daft as he is. Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. I showed you already. You know where, angie girl, so no need to do your cutesy unfunny unserious question routine. No. 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. Not "analogous" in the least, angie girl. Your claim is empty; it's bullshit. Why? See my earlier replies. See mine. They were bullshit, angie girl. You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl. I already have. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:35:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: 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. They are not, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it. Why? See my earlier explanation. Where? In the thread, angie girl. Which post. Why do you think it's cute to do that, angie girl? It demonstrates your bad faith and lack of serious purpose, angie girl. No it doesn't. I'm just winding up a daft troll. But your mention of the human deaths is anyway a logical fallacy. YOU are accused, rightly, of needlessly participating in animal slaughter, and it won't do for you to point the finger at your accuser and try to redirect the accusation back at him. YOU need to answer for YOUR needless participation in animal slaughter, evasive little bitch angie girl. How? However you feel is appropriate, angie girl. You claim animal slaughter is wrong, yet you participate daily in processes that have animal slaughter as an inherent feature. Your abrasive condemnation thus makes you a hypocrite. Why? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? 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. Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little bitch angie girl. Which? There's that snarky, unserious, sophomoric angie-girl bullshit again... In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? You're contradicting yourself above. He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes. No, angie girl, he didn't. Yes 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. It's a lame response, evasive little bitch angie girl. First of all, it's a logical fallacy - a _tu quoque_. Rather than address the legitimate accusation of hypocrisy against you, instead you attempt to accuse your accuser. That in no way exonerates you. Secondly, the basis for your _tu quoque_ fallacy is bogus. The human deaths and animal deaths are not comparable, as I have shown but which you have avoided addressing. Yet you keep trying your invalid defense. In what way? Every time you try your snarky, sophomoric _tu quoque_, angie girl. How? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Where? We know what you're doing with your snarky, unserious questions, angie girl. Do you think you're "winning" by doing this? Winning what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. You're winning that by a mile :-)) This is what I mean when I say you can't defend your phony "belief" in "ar". You don't really believe it; all you do is pay empty lip service to it. Which one? You're really a sophomoric unserious little ****, angie girl. But we knew that a long time ago. It's why you can't even *begin* to try to defend your incoherent pseudo-ethical beliefs. I have defended my position many times. You haven't, angie girl. You've done nothing but blabber away with snarky and sophomoric idiocy, regularly demonstrating your bad faith and lack of serious purpose. It's all you *can* do, angie girl, because you don't have the ability to examine your stance and defend it. It's not even a stance, angie girl - it's a pose. Why not? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:10:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote: self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her complete lack of serious purpose, wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:43:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl whiffed off again: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: angie girl whiffed off again: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:39:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: self-marginalized angie girl 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. See my other response. Your other response, of course, was bullshit, self-marginalized little angie girl. It had at its core a fallacy: _tu quoque_. Rather than address your FAILURE to abide by your so-called "ethical" beliefs, angie girl, you instead tried to accuse your accuser of the same failure. That isn't a "response", angie girl - that's bullshit. Of course it is Yes, of course it is, angie girl - it's all you write. You are utterly unable to defend your silly, feminine, poorly thought out and hysteria-based animal "rights" position, so instead you scribble some snarky sarcastic bullshit. That's all you can do, angie girl. What I wrote was: What you wrote was evasive bullshit. That's all you do, angie girl. If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, for sound reasons I gave and which you, predictably, ignored. The sound reasons, angie girl, are that the animal deaths differ from the human deaths in - scope - scale - systematization - lack of consequences These are real and highly meaningful differences, angie girl, that mean the animal deaths are *not* comparable with the human deaths. But your mere mention of the human deaths is a logical fallacy in the first place, evasive little bitch angie girl. It is an attempt to evade YOUR culpability in the slaughter of animals - a slaughter in which you have no need to participate, but choose to do so. So we all kill animals and humans Not comparable, angie girl. and that's why your argument is crap. No, evasive little bitch angie girl. The deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you could easily avoid the animal slaughter in which you participate, but you choose instead to participate. In exactly the same way as humans Not in the same way as humans at all, evasive little bitch angie girl. Why not? See above, sophomoric little bitch angie girl. Where above? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. I don't see it. You're confused. Try a Beechams pill. I gave the reasons why it's not comparable, angie girl, and predictably, you whiffed off and didn't address it. No you didn't. Yes, I did, angie girl; they're not far above. Predictably, you whiffed off from it. Whiffed off from what? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. Why? You're a hypocrite, angie girl. You do not really believe in animal "rights", as you falsely claim to do. Wjy? You're a bitch, angie girl. In what way? Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl. How? You're a liar. In what way? In every way, angie girl. Thanks for admitting you can't defend your beliefs, little bitch angie girl. Where have I admitted anything? In every post, angie girl, you admit by your failure to respond coherently that you can't defend your beliefs. Every time you smirk and giggle and pose one of your unserious, bad faith questions, angie girl, you are admitting your inability to defend your beliefs. In what way? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) |
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
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. 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. 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. But you don't, angie girl - you don't, because you're a hypocrite. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter