UK gardening - Re: Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about

Author

Re: Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about

Rudy Canoza

2007-06-27, 1:25 pm

amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> They are for oil as in Iraq.

They are not, evasive little XXXXX angie girl. The
deaths are not comparable, angie girl, and you know it.
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 XXXXX angie girl.

>
> Lets have some specifics in detail.

Let's have a meaningful question, evasive little XXXXX
angie girl.

> You're contradicting yourself
> above.

He didn't contradict himself at all, angie girl.

>
> Not at all; it's fact.

It's a lame response, evasive little XXXXX 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.

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.

Rudy Canoza

2007-06-28, 3:25 am

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:28:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
> See my other snarky, unserious, bitchy bullshit.
>
> Angus Macmillan

Already seen, already disposed of, angie girl.

LinkBot