"Rat & Swan" wrote


Dutch wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote

I am saying
the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of
the action which is, or is not, punished.

On top of all your other errors, that's false.

Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society,
slavery is moral?

It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral

It invalidates Joanne's claim that an action must be punished for
it to be immoral.

That's not the point he is making, you're either dense or disingenuous,
probably both. The fact that there are sanctions and punishment for actions
that violate human rights validates our claims that we live in a society
that respects human rights, despite the fact that human rights violations
exist. Our participation in society is consistent with a belief in human
rights *because of* those sanctions. Your belief in animal rights is not
validated, in fact everything in reality, almost everything you do,
IN-validates the claim Your token actions such as abstaining from meat, are
not nearly enough to validate your claims.

The punishment, or lack thereof, has NO relationship
to the inherent morality of the act itself.

Nobody said it did, that's not the point. The fact that there are
punishments for human rights violations invalidates your tu quoque parallel.
Your life does not validate the principle of animal rights, but your life
DOES validate the principle of human rights.

We say that your life does not respect animal rights, and your tu quoque
response is that our lives do not respect human rights. That response is
bogus for the above reasons.

I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Rat & Swan wrote:



Dutch wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote


I am saying
the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of
the action which is, or is not, punished.


On top of all your other errors, that's false.


Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society,
slavery is moral?


It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral


It invalidates the claim that an action must be punished for
it to be immoral.

Strawman: That was never anyone's claim.

The punishment, or lack thereof, has NO relationship
to the inherent morality of the act itself.

Prove it.

There were societies which practiced slavery

You are a slaveholder who claims slavery is immoral.

pearl cut-and-pasted:
...
Streamlining is not the same as overturning laws or regulations, nor is it to
set them aside. It is a matter of process. NOTE YOU INSIPID FOOL: *POTENTIAL*
RESTRICTIONS, NOT CURRENT ONES.

'The proposed joint regulation will minimize the potential restriction
of pesticides (with expert fish and wildlife scientists involved) by
streamlining and clarifying the review process. ' Got it now, suspect?

YOU don't get it, Chelsea. It doesn't and won't change existing laws or
regulations. The Endangered Species Act will remain intact. It's just a
reasonable measure that will streamline an overly bureaucratic process.

'Under the rule changes proposed by Bush Administration
officials at NMFS and USFWS on January 30, 2004, the
EPA would be given unilateral power to determine the
risks of many pesticides to endangered species, shutting
expert fish and wildlife scientists out of the process.'

EPA has "expert fish and wildlife scientists" on the payroll, dummy. The cause
of alarm is among ACTIVISTS, not scientists. Your ACTIVIST "news" source bears
that out -- it is an activist site, not a science site.

http://ga0.org/campaign/pesticide_pr...w5ssxs4vjx7i36

Why doesn't that leftist website allow access to their pages? I was redirected
to a sign-up page. It calls the site "The Leader in Online Campaigns."

'.. courts have ruled EPA's current pesticide review process
does not legally comply with the ESA (Endangered Species Act).
In the Pacific Northwest and California, the federal court has
already severely limited the use of 38 pesticides. ...'
http://www.msfb.com/news/frontpagest...deESAregs.html

Great that you use a source that actually endorses the proposed change. From
your second source:
The proposed regulations helps to solve the problem because it….

Ø Creates a “joint” rule that will be used by the services when
conducting consultations with other government agencies for the federal
actions that require compliance with ESA. (In this case, the review and
registration of a pesticide is the “action” and EPA is the “other
agency.”)

Ø Clarifies how FIFRA pesticide reviews will be completed in compliance
with ESA and results in less litigation and more certainty for pesticide
users.

Ø Allows EPA to make the initial determination on a pesticide’s affect
on protected species based on the Agency’s expertise and extensive
ecological review.

Ø Establishes that, so long as protocols are followed, the Services do
not need further review in this form of interagency consultation – i.e.
EPA determines that a pesticide is “likely to affect a species.”

Explain how any of those will endanger anything except activists seeking
leverage through delay tactics.

You get it,

Yes, and you clearly don't. This is another ploy used by activists -- NOT
scientists -- to scare gullible people in a shameless exercise of promoting
their extreme (and anti-capitalist) agenda.

...

Jonathan Ball wrote in message nk.net...
Rat & Swan wrote:



Dutch wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote


I am saying
the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of
the action which is, or is not, punished.


On top of all your other errors, that's false.


Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society,
slavery is moral?


It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral


It invalidates the claim that an action must be punished for
it to be immoral.

Strawman: That was never anyone's claim.

The punishment, or lack thereof, has NO relationship
to the inherent morality of the act itself.

Prove it.

There were societies which practiced slavery

You are a slaveholder who claims slavery is immoral.






Ball, your chia pet wig needs watering.




..

Jonathan Ball wrote in message nk.net...
Rat & Swan wrote:



Dutch wrote:

"Rat & Swan" wrote


I am saying
the punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to the morality of
the action which is, or is not, punished.


On top of all your other errors, that's false.


Why? Are you saying that in a slave-holding society,
slavery is moral?


It's not relevent to this discussion whether or not animal cds is moral


It invalidates the claim that an action must be punished for
it to be immoral.

Strawman: That was never anyone's claim.

The punishment, or lack thereof, has NO relationship
to the inherent morality of the act itself.

Prove it.

There were societies which practiced slavery




You are a slaveholder who claims slavery is immoral.




There you go Ball!!! Get yo'self a slave. No more beating your old
lady and kid.
You could have a real live bona fide slave to abuse.(make sure the
slave is a female)