Re: Time to Start Shooting "animal rights" Psychopaths

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:42 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 7:28 am, 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
vehicles,
>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>> You stupid ****witted prig.  You have *ZERO* standing to be
lecturing
>>>>>>>> anyone on ethical behavior.  You'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.  You
>>>>>> 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."  That was lecturing
>>>>>> people about ethical behavior.  What the **** is wrong with you?
>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lecture
>>>> You were lecturing about ethics.  Cut 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.  You said "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." 
Driving
>>>>>> a motor vehicle is such an activity.
>>>>> The statement needs considerable qualification, it's not
satisfactory
>>>>> as it stands,
>>>> You ****ed up, then.  You were slovenly, as rash amateurs in ethical
>>>> pontificating usually are.
>>> The post wasn't intended for publication in peer-reviewed journal,
>>> Rudy.
>> Irrelevant.
>>
> 
> It was a perfectly reasonable statement to make.

No, it wasn't.  It was a bit of bull**** and a non sequitur.


>>> 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.
>> There is a non-zero likelihood that the operation of a motor vehicle
>> will cause the death or injury of someone.  That means "likely".
>>
> 
> That's *really* classic, Rudy. 

Not really.



>>>>>>> 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.  You pompously set yourself up as some kind
of
>>>>>> ethical philosopher.
>>>>> I wasn't doing that simply by making the statement
>>>> You were.
>>> Well, in that case there's nothing wrong with it.
>> Self-serving redefinition.
> 
> Not following you. How am I "redefining" myself?

Not yourself, ****wit.