Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>>>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
>>>> your own preaching,
>>> It does not.
>> It certainly does, rupie.
>>
>
> What utterly palpable nonsense

No. If you don't practice what you preach - and you
don't - then you don't believe the preaching. That
makes it bullshit, too.


>>>> so the preaching is bullshit.
>>> And this in any case would not follow.
>> It does.
>
> Of course it wouldn't follow.

Of course it follows, fruit.