Re: Time to Start Shooting "animal rights" Psychopaths

On Jul 6, 7:28=A0am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 6:38 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 1:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> These quotations from David Harrison are certainly very
interesting=
..
> >>>>> Engaging in an activity which is like to cause injury or death to
> >>>>> humans, or for that matter any sentient being, is not an ethically
> >>>>> justifiable way to behave
> >>>> So, I guess you never operate - hell, never even use - motor
vehicle=
s,
> >>>> right?
> >>>> You stupid ****witted prig. =A0You have *ZERO* standing to be
lectur=
ing
> >>>> anyone on ethical behavior. =A0You're a pompous, egotistical ****.
> >>> You really are a bit weird, Rudy.
> >> No, you pompous egotistical ****.
>
> > I'm afraid you'll find that a large number of people who read your
> > posts would regard you as pretty weird.
>
> You have no way of knowing that.
>

Yes, I do. I can read.

> >>> I wasn't lecturing anyone about
> >>> ethical behaviour,
> >> You were lecturing people about ethical behavior, you lying ****wit.
=
=A0You
> >> just told people that "engaging in an activity which is like [sic] to
> >> cause injury or death to humans, or for that matter any sentient
being=
,
> >> is not an ethically justifiable way to behave." =A0That was lecturing
> >> people about ethical behavior. =A0What the **** is wrong with you?
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lecture
>
> You were lecturing about ethics. =A0Cut the bull****.
>

I was making a perfectly reasonable comment.

> >>> I made a comment, the main point of which was that
> >>> I don't morally approve of the use of violent tactics in political
> >>> activism,
> >> That's not what you said. =A0You said "engaging in an activity which
i=
s
> >> like [sic] to cause injury or death to humans, or for that matter any
> >> sentient being, is not an ethically justifiable way to behave."
=A0Dri=
ving
> >> a motor vehicle is such an activity.
>
> > The statement needs considerable qualification, it's not satisfactory
> > as it stands,
>
> You ****ed up, then. =A0You were slovenly, as rash amateurs in ethical
> pontificating usually are.
>

The post wasn't intended for publication in peer-reviewed journal,
Ball.

Also, you ****ed up much more egregiously when you said that driving a
motor vehicle is "likely" to cause injury or death. It's not,
otherwise cars would be banned.

> >>> I wasn't anticipating that this stance would be
> >>> controversial. I've certainly got as much right to offer my thoughts
> >>> about morality as anyone else.
> >> You do more than that. =A0You pompously set yourself up as some kind
o=
f
> >> ethical philosopher.
>
> > I wasn't doing that simply by making the statement
>
> You were.

Well, in that case there's nothing wrong with it.