Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 25-06-2007, 09:39 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
Default 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 -




  #2   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 09:40 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 154
Default 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)
  #3   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 10:07 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Default 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.


  #4   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 03:06 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 114
Default 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.
  #5   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 09:29 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 154
Default 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)


  #6   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 09:40 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 154
Default 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)
  #7   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 10:06 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 114
Default 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.
  #8   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 10:08 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 114
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
Old 26-06-2007, 11:56 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Default 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.

  #10   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2007, 10:09 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 154
Default 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)


  #11   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2007, 10:27 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Default 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.

  #12   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2007, 10:40 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 154
Default 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)
  #13   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2007, 11:01 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Default 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.




  #14   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2007, 02:34 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 154
Default 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)
  #15   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2007, 03:25 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 114
Default 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
there Petra will follow the request, and if Madeleine not sails it too, the suffering will destroy from time to time the deaf cottage Josef P. Madren Ponds 0 14-11-2007 05:36 AM
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too! Rudy Canoza[_2_] United Kingdom 0 25-06-2007 09:13 PM
What rights do I have Blondie Australia 11 01-01-2007 07:36 AM
Help! Brown lawn. Too short, Too long, Too much water or Too little water???? Brad and Julie Vaughn Lawns 9 04-09-2003 12:22 AM
Help! Brown lawn. Too short, Too long, Too much water or Too lois Lawns 0 27-08-2003 03:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017