In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >>>>rebut it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
> >>>
> >>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >>than you are doing.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
> that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
> doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
> others from doing it.

This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements. I ask
again, is brooming children wrong. Have stopped yourself from doing? If
yes, then you are now obligated to stop others from doing.

What a loon.

> Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
> absolutely wrong, stupid homo?

I'll tell ya about it when you blow me.