|
Home > Archive > UK gardening > June 2007 > Re: Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about
|
|
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-24, 5:25 pm |
| angie girl wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:21:36 GMT, "ontheroad" <stop@stop.com> wrote:
>
>
> It proves nothing.
It proves your dishonesty and hypocrisy, angie girl.
You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily
behavior proves you do not.
>
> 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.
>
> The same applies for humans.
No.
>
> Like bombing people in Iraq?
Evasion noted, angie girl. We're talking about your
claims being belied by your behavior.
>
>
> So do you not believe in human rights?
Evasion noted.
>
> You've proved nothing.
He's proved you are a lying hypocrite.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-26, 9:25 am |
| self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:05:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have answered all your bullshit previously.
You never answered it, evasive little angie girl. You
whiffed off from it, every time.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-26, 9:25 am |
| self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:06:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Likewise.
Yours was bullshit, angie girl. It was bullshit in
every way.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-26, 5:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:07:18 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-26, 5:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:06:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 1:25 pm |
| angie girl whiffed off again:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 XXXXX 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 XXXXX 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.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <vr7583tvk3kboli2j5gbbumbfcboln6kgn@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <6Rygi.1609$zA4.1533@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.211.128
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1182972354 69.3.211.128 (Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:25:54 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:25:54 PDT
Bytes: 7449
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com talk.politics.animals:327275 uk.environment.conservation:93002 misc.rural:246989 uk.rec.gardening:463944 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:243271
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:42:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> What is it if it's not human behaviour?
>
>
> Why is it not part of human behaviour?
It is qualitatively different from the collateral and
deliberate deaths of animals in agriculture, angie girl.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 fuck who can't be bothered to do anything
concrete to avoid the needless death of 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.
>
> 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.
>
> No.
Yes, angie girl, you do.
>
> You're as daft as he is.
Wrong, and not a rebuttal. He didn't contradict himself.
>
> Why?
See my earlier replies.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Who said I was a vegan?
You're vegetarian, and you are so for phony so-called
"ethical" reasons.
>
> 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 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.
>
> It's you who has everything upside down.
No, angie girl. We have your disgusting hypocrisy and
sanctimony right side up, in plain sight.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <8ol583lvcu7c37gmks2h1mdr1lmoq4rucq@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <W7Bgi.1611$tj6.958@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:02:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.211.128
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net 1182981750 69.3.211.128 (Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:02:30 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:02:30 PDT
Bytes: 8755
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com talk.politics.animals:327289 uk.environment.conservation:93013 misc.rural:247012 uk.rec.gardening:463982 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:243285
self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:25:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Why ?
See my other replies, snarky sophomoric angie girl.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Read what I wrote.
You wrote evasive, sophomoric bullshit.
>
> In what way?
In all ways, sophomoric little angie girl.
>
> Neither do humans and it happens every day.
>
> Where have you been all your life?
>
>
> How?
In every way, sophomoric unserious little angie girl.
>
> Where?
Every post of yours, angie girl.
>
> No.
Yes, angie girl, you do.
>
> 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.
>
>
> See mine.
They were bullshit, angie girl.
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:35:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> Why?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
>
> Yes.
No, angie girl, he didn't.
>
>
>
> How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
>
>
> Winning what?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> 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.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:37:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> Where above?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> Whiffed off from what?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, 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.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 8:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:58:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Yes.
No, angie girl, it isn't nonsense. Blurting "nonsense"
is not a coherent or rational response, angie girl.
>
> 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.
>
> Who said?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> I'm just pointing it out .
You fabricated "it", angie girl. He didn't say it or
imply it.
>
> 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.
>
> Take a trip to Baghdad
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 8:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Which post.
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does, angie girl.
>
> How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
>
> How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> Yes
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> Where?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> You're winning
I know.
>
>
> Why not?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-27, 8:25 pm |
| self-marginalized angie girl, demonstrating her
complete lack of serious purpose, wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:10:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I don't see it.
Yes, you do, angie girl. We know you do, angie girl -
that's why you're doing the sophomoric bad-faith
bullshit dance.
You're beaten.
>
> Why?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> How?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
>
> In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-28, 3:25 am |
| right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Of course they are.
No.
> It involves "rights".
It involves your daily hypocritical violation of animal
"rights".
>
> I have already defended it.
Not once. You wouldn't have a clue how to start.
>
> War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour
We're talking about your daily violation of animal
"rights", which demonstrates your hypocrisy.
>
> Same thing .
No.
But you are a fatuous "ethical vegetarian", if not a
full-fledged loony "vegan".
>
> It's still human behaviour.
non sequitur
This isn't about war, or any other human behavior
except your massive and glaring hypocrisy.
>
> It doesn't prevent killing.
The human deaths are not comparable to the collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, as has been demonstrated
and from which you run away in great fear.
>
> Which is part of human behaviour.
non sequitur
>
> I haven't.
Right, because you don't have a legitimate moral
position. You are a hypocrite.
>
> Both are human behaviour.
non sequitur
You are a hypocrite. You participate in animal
slaughter that violates the "rights" you claim,
incoherently, that animals hold. You cannot explain
your hypocrisy, but we can plainly see it.
>
>
> Ditto.
non sequitur
You can't defend your position. You are a liar and a
hypocrite.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-29, 3:25 am |
| right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:57:12 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> See my other bullshit, in which I also couldn't defend my position. I never could; didn't even know how to start.
> Angus Macmillan
Exactly right.
| |
| Rudy Canoza 2007-06-29, 3:25 am |
| right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've already evaded that and spouted bullshit.
Yes, you did.
>
> The illogic of my position.
You couldn't defend it, angie girl.
>
> I'm not.
You are, angie girl.
> I'm against war but not against farming.
You claim to be against the needless slaughter of
animals, but your behavior proves otherwise.
>
> I don't have a problem.
You do: a thorough inability to think clearly, as well
as an inability to defend your silly, hyper-emotional
position.
>
> It's human behaviour.
Irrelevant. We're talking about your beliefs and your
behavior which contradicts your so-called beliefs.
>
> That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for
> indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake.
And yet you do it, daily.
>
> No it's not both are morally wrong.
incoherent bullshit.
>
> Not at all.
Completely. You can't defend your position, angie
girl; wouldn't even know how to start.
You're not a serious contributor. No "ara" is.
>
> In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.
>
> Pissing away my worthless time, and trying to piss away the time of others.
We're toying with you, angie girl.
>
>
> I'm playing with mummy's
>
>
> Angus Macmillan
So.
|
|
|
|
|