Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 5:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> ****wit is only interested in animals for himself. He
>>>> likes "meat...gravy." "aras" confront him with a truth
>>>> that ****wit cannot address: that ****wit's
>>>> consumption of "meat...gravy" harms animals interests.
>>>> ****wit *wants* to take the "aras'" case apart, but
>>>> he can't. Instead, he tries to beat them at their own
>>>> game, by imagining a *new* right or interest held
>>>> by...non-existent animals. It falls completely flat,
>>>> because a) it's patently absurd; b) it has already
>>>> been demolished, over a century ago; and c) ****wit is
>>>> too sophomorically inept to have any hope of making it
>>>> work.
>>>> The entire thing, nine years of wasted time, was just
>>>> ****wit trying to justify HIS pursuit of HIS interest.
>>>> ****wit does not care and never cared about animals'
>>>> well-being. He just wants "meat...gravy."
>>> You can't make any credible case against animal rights either.
>> I can and have.
>
> Show us where.
Thousands of posts, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and
talk.politics.animals, going back to 1999. Browse around a bit.
|
