Scented Nectar wrote:
>>No good. This is where the more shocking example of
>>sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
>>You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
>>sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
>>because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
>>every other day.
>
> I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
> fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
> something.

It's a valid analogy. You're taking an exception to it on personal or
defensive grounds. Deal with the issue in any other form: robbing fewer
banks, ripping off fewer old people, stealing less candy from babies,
running over fewer pedestrians with your car, etc.

>>Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
>>others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
>>merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
>>causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
>>wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
>>claim to be doing "better".
>
> Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
> better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
> You'd have an argument if I had said best and
> not better, but I didn't so you don't.

Patting yourself on the back via your subjective standards is a bit
tawdry and has nothing to do with being moral or more ethical.

>>>How many times must I remind you of
>>>this?
>>
>>How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
>>NOT "doing better"?
>
> I am too,

No.

> and there's nothing you can do or say
> to stop that.

At least you realize you're close-minded.