On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >>>>>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
> >>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
> >>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>> Yes - daily.
> >>>>> No, I don't
> >>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>> Yawn.
> >> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >> reason.
>
> > By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> > sufficient in food and electricity.
>
> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
> giving it up.
>

You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.

> > I don't think that you've shown
> > that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> > should, but
>
> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
> humans,

No, it's not. I've discussed this elsewhere in the thread.

> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
> bullshit.

Non sequitur.

> QED- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -