Quote:
Quote by: RickSp  Why do you merely repeat what you have said before? |
Errrrr, because you keep avoiding them.
Quote:
|
If it wasn't convinving the first time, it will be less so the second and third.
|
Then get with it and answer them the first time they come around.
Quote:
|
I answered your questions, to the extent that they deserved an answer, already.
|
No, you haven`t. You can`t answer them because your reasoning comes out to be prejudicial.
Quote:
|
I do not find anything immoral with eating other species of animals for food. I do not consider this to be "unnecessary cruelty."
|
You were the one who said you only gave moral considerations to humans. Then you stated:
Quote:
|
I am opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals which does not mean that I am opposed to eating animals for food.
|
Now, why care about unnecessary cruelty if there are no moral considerations with regards to animals? I want to know RIGHT NOW! Or, are you still unable to explain it, or just avoiding it? Which is it?
Quote:
|
Your assertions that we have stepped "outside of the natural order" may represent your religious views but have no basis is reality. Your obvious contempt for human nature is not a view I share.
|
Haven`t you seen that I already stated I hold no religious views? And where have I shown "contempt" for human nature. Modifying one`s "nature" does not mean contempt for it. Could you explain to us why making a choice equals "contempt"?
The point of debate is to address the issues brought up. You are displaying an inability to do so.
Quote:
|
Your comments about cannibalism, crapping in public, equating non-vegetarians to slave traders and attempting to equate a kidnapped girl to a caged chicken are not worthy of comment or response.
|
Well, I can understand not addressing them when the analogies tie you up. It is convenient. The girl herself analagized herself. Anthropoligists will tell you about cannibolism being more widespread in our far past. I don`t think I "equated" non-vegetarians" to slave-traders. I used them as an "analogy." Analogies are not "equating" techniques. They serve to outline the reason. All of which you continuously avoid rolling your sleeves up to get into the debate.
Convenience is easy. Btw, if you are refusing to debate, then why keep visiting the thread?