On Jun 29, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:36 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Jun 18, 3:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> The burden of proof is on you, and you fail to meet it
> >> >> >> - always.
>
> >> >> > If I point out that existing institutions are based on
> >> >> > discrimination that lacks justification
>
> >> >> Then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate the
> >> >> lack of justification. You fail.
>
> >> >> ****wit.
>
> >> > That's utterly absurd. If someone maintains that there's a
> >> > justification, it's clearly their job to provide it. You utterly
> >> > incredible fool.
>
> >> You have said that you are not morally compelled to do everything in your
> >> power to stop supporting animal deaths. You have granted yourself the
> >> moral
> >> right to determine when it is justifiable for you to support animal
> >> deaths,
> >> yet at the same time you attempt to take that right away from others, and
> >> to
> >> top it all off you accuse us of supporting unjustified discrimination.
> >> The
> >> hypocrisy is beyond comprehension.
>
> > I believe that there are some limits on when it is morally permissible
> > to buy products which are produced by processes that cause harm. On
> > the other hand, there are some instances where people buy products
> > which are produced by processes that cause harm, and yet I am not yet
> > convinced that this is morally impermissible. Obviously I do not
> > believe that I or anyone else has the unconditional right to buy
> > whatever products they personally feel they are justified in buying.
> > The reality, however, is that I and each other person can only make a
> > good faith effort to determine which products they are justified in
> > buying and act accordingly. If I ever become convinced that what I am
> > doing is morally wrong, I shall acknowledge that fact, and hopefully I
> > will change my behaviour. In all of these respects, I am just like
> > you. I am not even aware of any differences between our positions
> > about exactly which products it is permissible to justify, except that
> > you apparently think yourself justified in occasionally buying factory-
> > farmed meat, I probably wouldn't agree with that.
>
> Yet you grant yourself the freedom to buy factory-farmed produce, probably
> on a regular basis, while I only consume factory-farmed meat rarely. You
> ought to tread carefully when applying your personal guidelines to others.
>

To me, "factory-farming" refers to the modern practice of treating
animals like machines in order to produce meat, milk, and eggs. You
want to argue that there's some reasonable usage of "factory-farmed"
which applies to the stuff I buy, fine, go ahead. I simply made the
statement that I am not convinced it's morally permissible to buy
factory-farmed meat, whereas I'm also not convinced that it's morally
impermissible to buy vegetables and tofu. You haven't really given any
indication why this is an unreasonable stance.

> > There are no more
> > grounds for calling me hypocritical than you
>
> I don't care, get over it. I have no patience for high-maintenance
> respondents.

You took it upon yourself to call me a hypocrite, as all the antis
have repeatedly done for so many years, and I simply pointed out for
the thousandth time that there is not the slightest rational
foundation for this accusation which does not apply equally well to
you people. You say I never say anything of substance, well, this is
something of substance that I have been saying for many years in
response to the arguments you constantly make. None of you have ever
got it, and yet you call me a colossal idiot. Anyway, this time round
you apparently had nothing to say in response, and instead of
retracting your claim, let alone apologizing, you said "I don't care,
get over it" and called me high-maintenance, and seemed to be under
the impression that you were the one who was having their patience
taxed.

Anyway, I don't need to "get over it", I'm not worked up about it, I'm
simply pointing out, yet again, that your behaviour really is utterly
absurd, foolish and indefensible. I really don't know why I waste my
time with you. I know better than to expect an apology, but I would
have thought it would be reasonable to expect at least a retraction,
since you don't seem to have anything to say in response to my
rebuttal. Do you finally acknowledge that there are no rational
grounds for calling me a hypocrite? Or do you still maintain that I'm
guilty of extraordinary hypocrisy? If so, how about actually
addressing my arguments and explaining why there are grounds for
calling me hypocritical which don't apply equally well to you?