Rupert wrote:
> 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.
No, you haven't, and the few you've read you didn't read carefully.
I have elaborated at length on why "ar" is bull****. You are
insignificant flea ****, not worth more time than it takes to smack you
around. It is a waste of my valuable time to re-elaborate the fatal
flaws of "ar" to you, because you're an ideologically rigid and
dishonest extremist. My only engagement with you here is to **** you
over.
|
