rectal suppository wrote:
>>you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
>>action in Iraq.
>
> Wrong. The majority of the world was against the War in Iraq.

Wrong, and goal post move. Polling showed the world was evenly split on
the war. The world exists of more than the UN Security Council nations,
and more than Islamic nations. You forget that we had over forty nations
supporting us in the build up to war. More are now coming on board. Even
our harshest critics in the UN and Paris (who gives a **** what the
French think anyway) later agreed that deposing Saddam was a good thing.

I was addressing the United States population. If you disagree that a
majority of Americans supported the war, I encourage you to find
whichever polling organization(s) you trust. Most polling organizations
have archives of their polling data, and some even have trend charts.

> So, the majority of which select part of the population do
> you want to talk about?
>
> I guarantee: a MAJORITY of the population of the US, even the world,
> would love Bill Gates to give them each a $1000. Forcing Bill Gates
> to do so just because a majority wants it does not make it right.

Non sequitur. How many bong hits did you have before you wrote this
irrelevant drivel?

> (It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
> Iraq may be right for other reasons.)

Plenty of reasons.

> The essence of "majority rule" is considering the majority opinion
> of THOSE AFFECTED MOST.

This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
full display.

> For example, if you want to support the War
> in Iraq using this concept, you have to say something like, the
> victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality form a majority over
> Saddam Hussein himself
> and his immediate family. Otherwise, you are forced to face the
> reality
> that a clear majority of Iraqis voted for Hussein -- 100% in fact.

Hey, idiot, what choice did they have? Was there ever another name on
the ballot? Some ****ing choice, huh.

> In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
> tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
> majority.

Animals are neither tortured nor murdered. Murder is a crime with a
specific legal definition. I know you don't care about specific
definitions in your rush to condemn others, but you're not sincere; you
are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
processes among their own species, much less in ours. Your point is
laughably non sequitur and irrelevant.

> I don't give a damn about the opinion of some arbitrary majority
> who know nothing about an issue, never researched it, never did
> anything to acquire the knowledge, etc.

I know. As I just wrote, you are an ideologue. You don't care about the
truth, especially since it is at odds with your agenda.

> What matters is the opinion of the majority of those who fight, work,
> suffer, and die for a cause --- which is the animal rights soldiers.

ARAs are not a majority, they are a very vocal but still marginalized
minority. ARAs are also not soldiers, they are terrorists. Review the
list of articles in my previous replies to you. Suffering and dying for
causes is beside the point: the terrorists on 9/11 did that, but their
pursuits were entirely ignoble. Just as yours, and other ARAs', are.