On Jul 24, 8:28 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
I've read thousands of your posts. I'm not going to read your entire
posting history. I haven't seen any credible critique of the position
people who identify as animal rights advocates take regarding how we
should treat nonhuman animals. You direct me to a post which you think
contains such a credible critique.
|
